I do not blame any woman or queer person arming themselves in the U.S. right now. But I think that you should think of it as personal protection rather than preparation for something larger.
Be aware of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews
The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson’s suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.
Obviously, women and queer people are a lot more than 1% of the population, but you can’t count on every queer person being on the right side and you certainly can’t count on every woman to be on the right side.
The second amendment was not made for personal protection
It was also opposed by George Washington on the argument that “A bunch of farmers with guns will never defeat a trained army.” He basically did exactly that, but it took the support of one of the world’s largest super powers at the time in order to do it - France.
Not to say don’t arm yourself. I plan on doing exactly that myself. But don’t expect to be overthrowing the dictatorship to come. There are no resistance groups being armed by the EU here.
Washington was talking about the militias that were present in the early parts of the war that were under trained and undisciplined. The red coats took them easily and they fled often so the continental congress started the continental army lead by Washington, which was a trained and disciplined army in the style of European standing armies, which was able to take on and even defeat the British occasionally.
After the war the ruling elite still had this idealized vision of citizen militias protecting the liberty of white man and saw it as a less tyrannical, and cheaper model then the European professional standing army and made the second amendment to encourage it. Washington was saying that that system failed and will never work and that we should have a trained army ready to take on European powers if they come back.
Now we have the worst of both worlds, a massive army that gobbles up tax dollars and a bunch of untrained citizens with guns who barely understand what a militia is much less can protect the liberty of the nation.
Yeah, pretty much what I was getting at. We live in a country where everybody believes themselves to be the hero in their own Rambo style action movie.
“Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he’s John Wayne? Rambo? Marshal Dillon?”
Edit: I can’t be the only person who’s seen Die Hard.
You mean the best Christmas movie?
Getting another superpower to arm Americans is like putting a hat on a hat
I’m going to make myself harder to black bag.
that was before tanks and instant communication. the army would have been less organized and maybe you could have a chance against the government, especially as a militia. today you don’t.
you do have a chance against a bunch of fuckwads who threaten you because the party they voted for won and the think they can rape freely now. just not the government.
The last three wars have been pretty recent, and haven’t not gone well against a foe no where near or equal. Not so much as a pyric victory, but an eventual unwillingness to keep wasting time and money and lives, and we just left. What do you call it when you just leave a war failing all your objectives and handing over territory to the enemy?
what are you talking about? control over your own land is nothing like invading a remote country halfway around the world.
Yes, like its two completely different things
I’m not saying you are wrong, but the biggest difference, and one that actually matters, is that there was a very clear us vs. them defined and easily spotted. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan we were fighting against people that blended in and weren’t being actively turned on by their neighbors. Here, you can bet every dickish Dick that voted red would happily report on the neighbors that they even have an iota of suspicion about resisting the orange cunt.
Actually you are describing how it would not be different at all than these other wars. An insurgency in the us would be particularly hard to pick out. There would be no outward appearance between “us” or “them” we are a very diverse nation after all. Also, in these wars neighbors were turning each other in left and right. It was nearly impossible to determine if it was legitimate, or a personal squabble, or some random in order to get brownie points with the us. People are no different over here.
Besides, i will not entertain the idea that fighting against tyranny is wrong because it would be hard.
That is historically true, unfortunately the conservative artificial supermajority Supreme Court doesn’t respect its own precedents and historical facts.
I mean the Supreme Court can say what they like. But their power is derived by the people. It can be taken back.
What a bunch of slave-owners thought about guns hundreds of years ago is not really relevant to today.
And if you’re going to attack someone for thinking people should be armed for the wrong reason, maybe you should find better targets.
Whoa, I’m not attacking you. I have a difference in opinion as to why people should be armed. Not saying that one does not have a right to self defense, just that i put stock in the need to collectively hold the government accountable and fight tyranny
When’re you gonna start?
And you can see why, from what I already wrote, that is not likely to work unless the majority is on your side. And the military.
The military has had a pretty lousy track record against gorilla warfare from much smaller, worse armed groups who, by the width of an ocean were unable to affect logistical lines, the means to project warfare, or the families of our soldiers. A Revolution within would be much worse.
How many innocent people died in those wars? It’s not very nice of you to be willing to put their lives on the line like that.
Oh? Now it’s a discussion about who should be sacrificed and for what. Freedom always has a cost. I never removed myself from the possibility. But right now, the royal “we”, seem to be sacrificing the minority, the different, the poor, the non christian and it gets worse every day. Freedoms are slipping, corporations get stronger, and standards of living and hope for the future fades. This will only accelerate. Arguing to arm oneself for personal protection but not collective action will doom all, but the chosen, to be picked off one by one.
It’s not about mounting an organized resistance. It’s about making the black bag squads scared of coming to your house specifically.
When the chips are down, nobody’s got your back like you do.
That’s literally what I said:
I think that you should think of it as personal protection rather than preparation for something larger.
That’s actually the sentence that was cryptic enough for me to misread it, but the rest of your comment is pretty clear.
I think we agree that it is important to consider parallels in history, but the US is not 1930s Germany.
The U.S. is almost exactly like 1930s Germany in 1932. It’s not 1933 yet.
Germany is roughly 138,000 square miles in size, while the USA is approximately 4,000,000 square miles.
The population of Germany in the 1930’s was roughly 60,000,000, the population of the US today, closer to 400,000,000.
The US does not share an international border with 10 different countries.
That’s just for starters. So while I agree there are parallels, there are a lot more differences that you’re not accounting for.
I don’t think you’re stupid and I think you’re able to read context, so why you’re pretending I wasn’t talking about the political atmosphere and playing this “well actually” game, I don’t know.
I really don’t want to argue, and my original comment was a direct response to your assertion that armed resistance in the US (if warranted) is essentially futile.
Again, yes there are parallels, which I continue to acknowledge, but the US is not Germany in a ton of relevant ways. Subsequently, a direct comparison between 1930’s Germany and 2025 US is inherently flawed, in regard to armed resistance - the main topic of your own original comment.
Is it possible that while you were busy erroneously ad homineming me with an accusation of '‘well actually(ing)’ you, that it was you who missed context? Or are you pretending I wasn’t talking about the topic of the comment I replied to and playing a ‘well actually’ game?
My reply to you was not hostile, why default to treating me adversarially? Why instead of discussing the topic that you brought up would you force me into this exhausting position? I believe you can do better than reddit tier.
As an alternative, if we assume that a significant portion of the left is armed instead of just a minority, Rojava would be a good modern day example of the realistic effectiveness of an armed populace, as they employ horizontal citizen militias to survive against both ISIS and Turkey.
The Spanish Civil War is another interesting example, as the initial response from the left/anarchists when the fascists began their coup attempt was made up of civilian militias formed quickly and armed with whatever they had or could source from a local armory, and they were able to effectively fight off the initial coup in almost half the country, and gather themselves up for a protracted conflict. It’s not quite as direct an example, as the leftists in that conflict we supplemented with tanks and airplanes and artillery from the USSR, but firearms were an essential piece to their resistance, and had the populace been more armed before hand, it would’ve been helpful, as they had trouble producing and acquiring enough through trade.
There’s a great series on the Spanish Civil War here that gets into the nitty gritty, if you’re interested. :)
Sorry, you’re calling what is happening in Syria a good example? Do you know how many people died? Also in the Spanish Civil War?
It’s great how people here are willing to sacrifice so many innocent lives on their behalf.
Both conflicts are horrific, but what was their alternative? We saw what happened in Germany when few fought back, and that was just as horrific an outcome, if not more so (6 million Jews killed vs 300 thousand on the left side in the Spanish civil war, though estimates vary).
Tens of thousands died under Mussolini in labor camps and via execution, and the same would’ve happened under Franco in Spain (and eventually did, post civil war)
To be clear, I’m not advocating that any country rush to armed conflict, but history seems to indicate that it’s better to be capable of defending yourself vs. not having the option at all.
If you have examples of pacifism being effective against fascism, I’m quite open to having my mind changed. In fact, I would prefer if that were the more effective option, if evidence supports it.
If you have examples of pacifism being effective against fascism, I’m quite open to having my mind changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_Slobodan_Milošević
With sentiment like “your body, my choice” floating around more and more, I hope that everyone in need will arm themselves accoringly.
Because the guys on the other guys think they are made of steel. Remind them that they have a lot of very vulnerable blood vessels close to the skin and that knifes are as cheap as their lies…
Jessie McGrath, 63, a lifelong Republican who is trans, grew up around guns on farms in Colorado and Nebraska. She decided to vote for Harris when Republicans started attacking gender-affirming care and “wanting to basically outlaw my ability to exist”. She ended up being a delegate at the Democratic national convention.
“Government getting involved in making healthcare decisions is something that I never thought I would see the Republican party doing,” she said.
What the actual…how are people this ignorant.
She was 100% on board with them regulating reproductive care because it has never personally affected her as a biological male.
She only has an issue now that her favorite team turned on her after telling her for the last 30 years that she’s next.
Assigned male at birth is the term you want to use. “Biological male” is a term used by transphobes to spread misinformation.
Biology is very complex and not your elementary school version of biology. What makes someone “biologically” male? Is it having a penis, having testis, having more testosterone than estrogen, having XY chromosomes? These can all be intermixed with other characteristics.
The “basic biology” definition doesn’t work in the real world, and the people using it are actively trying to harm trans people or ignorant. Now you’re more informed so ignorance isn’t an excuse anymore.
I’m not super versed into this, just looking to learn 🤗
Individuals having two X chromosomes (XX) are female; individuals having one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (XY) are male.
Doesn’t that and having a penis means being a biological man? I don’t really see how “biological man” is offensive…
The problem is what does it mean to be biologically a man? Is it a static thing defined at birth or is it a description of the living organism as it exists? (It’s the latter.) For example, there are some animals that can change their sex naturally. We don’t say they’re just the one they’re born as.
OK, so now humans. If biological sex is a description of the person as they exist currently, what does it mean for us? Chromosomes are a useful tool because they contain the code that tells our body how to develop, but the actual development is the part that matters, not the chromosomes. The chromosomes will dictate what hormones are produced, and the hormones are what actually control development. We can control what hormones are in the body, so we can hijack the process and change the actual development.
So, since biological sex is a description of the creature as they are, if we hijack the process of development to tell the body to develop according to given sex, that’s what their biological sex should be called, right? The clownfish that was once a male that changes into a female is a female. We don’t say it’s a male just because it once was one.
I can’t say whether it’s offensive. I’m a cis man. The issue I do know is that it’s used by transphobes to pretend like they know more than they do and harm trans people. For example, congress’s anti-trans bathroom rule. Speaker Johnson said: “All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings — such as restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms — are reserved for individuals of that biological sex” He’s using the term as a weapon, not as a descriptive tool.
Where it’s most important is for doctors. My understanding is assigned sex at birth and medical records and understanding who the person is now is the useful information. They do need to know sex assigned at birth, and they also need to know if they’re on HRT or have had other procedures. They have to treat trans people differently than their sex at birth because biologically they are different.
I see ! Thanks, this was a very cool insight ❤️
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You are claiming that biological male and female has no use because of the edge cases where its not so clear, but its still useful most the time.
Besides, assigned at birth is pretty clear too. Doesnt say assigned at birth and can never change or assigned at birth and we are super sure.
You can’t just say people can’t use a bunch of words because transphobes have used it as an insult. The words are still meaningful, and hateful people will say literally anything. Why give them any power in the first place?
If someone says some awful transphobic shit, then fuck their opinion and fuck them and move on with your day. They aren’t suddenly some messiah giving you gospel. Dont let them live rent free in your head.
deleted by creator
Yeah the use of the word is in relation to the edge cases, where it is not useful.
These discussions are around the edge cases. Use the accepted terms that experts use to refer to these people.
I usually just use the terms each person tells me to refer to them by, but I guess I could ask the experts instead.
deleted by creator
Hey look the firing squad is starting to bend in towards itself.
We gotta make sure we use the right words before we can even begin to have a productive conversation, if those words change every 6 months that’s just too bad, use the current one or you’re a bigot.
Why would you assume I’m skeptical that trans people exist?
I’m skeptical of proposed solutions, but I am with anything. Put another way, I know the problem is real, but I wouldnt say the causes or solutions are well understood.
Additionally I’m concerned with the social pressure that is put on people to shut up and accept whatever a trans person tells you. That makes me skeptical that people are arguing unbiased.
Lastly, I dont like that we seem to be pushing ahead without proper scientific review (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/health/aap-gender-affirming-care-evidence-review.html).
I really hope we have all guessed right already, and I understand some might feel they have run out of time, but to me theres a lot of unanswered or unsatisfyingly answered questions.
You didn’t even debate my point. I was only referring to amab and afabs. I don’t care about the edge cases because they’re not part of the point I’m making. It’s been well known that individuals with XY chromosomes and a penis are biologically male a.k.a amab, so what’s the difference?
deleted by creator
What about people with testis but no penis? What about people with XY chromosomes but a vagina? What about people with a penis and vagina?
“Basic biology” is the problem. You think a high school course was enough for you to have a complete understanding of biology. Biology is complex and messy, which your class didn’t discuss. It taught rigid definitions, which don’t exist in nature. Hormones define biological development. Every individual has different levels of different hormones, and also things just happen strangely sometimes too.
There’s also an issue with intersex people where some are born with both male and female genitals and the doctor (without consulting anyone else) may remove components the baby was born with to make them fit the rigid definition of male or female that they decided.
Nature is complex. Not understanding the complexity is fine, as long as you don’t pretend to. If you insist that your understanding is complete though then you’re arrogant and ignorant. It’s best not to be that way because it prevents learning and improving yourself.
Biological sex is not as cut and dry as you might think.
Assigned male at birth is overall a better more descriptive term, as through medical transition trans people acquire different sexual characteristics.
I’m not an expert in the field but this is how I’ve seen people more educated than me in biology describe it.
Yeah. Biologically, my sex is distinctly transfeminine as someone post transition, before transition, I like many trans people was some variety of intersex, but assigned male at birth puts me into the big bin that means what they were trying to say.
Though also blaming trans women’s assigned sex at birth for willingness to vote Republican is weird considering how much more likely cis women are than trans women to vote that way.
Not just More likely, but historically more likely.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-11-07/white-women-vote-donald-trump-kamala-harris
You are correct, horse_battery_staple. (Sorry). But yeah, a white trans woman who’s a republican is notable, but a white cis woman who’s a republican is a significant portion of my coworkers. Hell, I’d be shocked if we weren’t more pro choice than cis women statistically, not out of superiority or anything but because we’re more likely to have been driven away from politics and religion that tend to promote anti choice beliefs and because we won’t have the miscarriage trauma that I’ve seen drives some women towards anti choice beliefs.
I haven’t even had bottom surgery yet, but thanks to HRT my metabolism is much more in line with that of a typical woman than that of a man. Meaning that it is much more accurate to refer to me as a biological woman than as a biological man. So saying I’m the later isn’t just insulting, it is even scientifically incorrect. A trans woman who has received bottom surgery is in fact for pretty much all intents and purposes the same as a cis woman who has received a radical hysterectomy. Unless you call that kind of cis woman a biological man, doing the same to the trans woman is just as nonsensical.
And yes, this really affects pretty much everything: The treatment of things like brain tumors depends on biological sex and if you treat a trans woman like a man you are going to see the same bad outcomes that treating a cis woman like a man would have. Because again: Trans woman are (from a certain point in their transition onwards) biological women. Yes, it changes, get over it.
The reason to talk about amab/afab is specifically because they are the only terms that are reasonably consistent in all edge cases, except clerical errors.
Amab and afab are equivalent to biological male or female, just less explicit I suppose.
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?
I’m not arguing against you, more so arguing that the distinction doesnt much matter and could be argued either way. I’d rather just take someone’s word for it when they say who they are. Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?
Amab and afab are equivalent to biological male or female, just less explicit I suppose.
That’s the point: They are not! Any sensible interpretation of a biological sex has to look at the whole system and we have comprehensively proven that biological sex can be changed. It’s a spectrum to begin with. Refusing that is like refusing that irrational numbers exist and claiming that every number can be written as a fraction: Understandable if you subject-matter education ends in 7th grade, but not if you actually looked into somewhat deeper at all.
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?
For starters, define male set of chromosomes. If you say XY, then you will be interested to learn about De-la-Chapelle-Syndrom and Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome.
But even if we put that aside, the thing is: Chromosomes really don’t matter all that much. The relevant differences primarily lie with organs and hormone-levels. Now, there are things you can do with gene-therapy (there was for example that trans girl who used CRISPR on herself to get her testicles to produce E instead of T). So it’s not that they don’t play any role at all anymore when you are an adult, but what matters much more is the overall metabolism and HRT is absolutely capable of switching that around.
Like: Name the difference between a post-op transwoman and a cis woman who received a radical hysterectomy. Their metabolisms are functionally identical and both will have to substitute the same amount of Estradiol, because both lack ovaries. Chromosomes really don’t affect anything here, so insisting that they create a biological distinction, when they clearly don’t have any effect anymore is completely arbitrary.
I’m not arguing against you, more so arguing that the distinction doesnt much matter and could be argued either way. I’d rather just take someone’s word for it when they say who they are. Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?
The thing is: That is about accepting someone’s gender, which is usually indeed the more important thing.
But biological sex of course also exists and the important thing for many of us is that it can in fact be changed and the claim that it can’t is deeply problematic and harmful.
deleted by creator
Just because someone is living this doesnt mean they have a full understanding of things. Skepticism is important, even more so from allies since they have the same goals.
Just because a transphobe has said something doesnt mean someone else saying a similar thing has the same intent.
I find it odd that this group thats trying so hard to stop being an out group, is one of the most aggressive at banning/labelling peolle and placing them into an out group.
deleted by creator
There’s a lot of trans-medicalism in your post comrade.
Not really, no. I’m talking about biological sex, not gender.
A trans woman is a woman, full stop.
For non-medical and non-biological cases: Yes, and no one say disputes that.
The thing is that there are some people who don’t believe that for the other cases. I’m pointing out that while it is indeed a bit more complicated and takes some work to fully get there, trans women can even medically/biologically be women.
HRT and bottom surgery doesn’t define a person’s gender. Only affirm it.
Indeed. They change the biological sex, which helps affirming gender.
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.
Which makes you biologically a woman. I really think we should hammer that point home and not let people get away with it by limiting our criticism to the choice of words, when we are scientifically in the right.
deleted by creator
… They are talking about their lived experience, boiling it down to an -ism is daft.
deleted by creator
Its because sexual differentiation is many process that starts with an SRY gene and ends with hormone receptors all over the body. Evolution also acts on all of it at each step of the process. A good example is like chest hair patterns on men which are all over the place.
You can have a penis if the correct receptors are triggered while still not having testes or an SRY gene.
Evolution also has examples of creatures that evolved so that both sexes (hyenas) or none (many birds) have a penis in different creatures and where sexuality is environmentally determined (turtles). These evolutionary pressures that created all these animals may be acting on humans also.
Which all comes down to the idea that the way we treat people is socially constructed. Like we don’t want murder so we lock up murderers.
People who want to legislate biological binaries are saying there’s an inherent danger to society in allowing the edge cases to exist. I and many others would argue this is a kind of short-sighted eugenics program that disallows human diversity for purely aesthetic reasons.
The results are like intersex babies getting gruesome gender assignment surgeries to fit better into the binary so when scientists later poll people they get results created by the binary. We’re sort of basking in our own farts when we talk about biological sex.
Edit: it appears the person we’re replying to is uninterested in factual discussion and is just here to reinforce his own hateful worldview.
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure you’re often confused.
Who assigned them male at birth? What if they were raised like a cisgender female typically would be in our society?
What makes someone “assigned at birth”? Is it dressing in masculine clothes, is it having a name like Michael and Billy, is it having a circumcision? These can all be comingled with other variations of child rearing.
Just because a parent assigns a “gender” at birth doesn’t make it someone’s actual identifying “gender”. As a young child they have no say in the matter and it’s quite frankly wrong to whitewash their childhood history and personal trauma like that.
Now that you’re more informed, I hope moving forward you stop trying to erase people’s adolescent psychological adversity.
Assigned at birth is referring to what the doctor writes on your birth certificate. It’s not complicated. It has nothing to do with gender.
If you ever find yourself wondering why there’s people out there that don’t speak up about trans hate, just go reread your original reply to me. My comment was nothing close to hateful or bigoted, but you’re not gonna tolerate wrong speak on lemmy.
You clearly could see where I was coming from and where my support is directed. Instead of total indifference to my comment, which would have been the bare minimum amount of attention you could give to it. You decided to take umbrage with me saying “biological” instead of what makes you happy and throw out intersex groups that make up a fraction of a percent of the entire population like an uno reverse card.
Then to cap it off you made sure to declare that I’ve been “properly educated”, so sayeth you. So from here on out, I need to use the right language or… else?
I’m not quite sure what your final edict was supposed to imply. That if I don’t use the right language my trans friends won’t talk to me anymore? I’ll get kicked out of the gay club?
Instead of leaving it, you had to make it a point to punch down on someone who isn’t as “informed” as you and put me on blast like I just said the N word equivalent for trans persons.
Seriously, it’s great you want to help spread awareness, but damn you took a super hostile and adversarial tone right off the bat.
Just calling my shot here. I wrote all this out on my phone and it will not be well received despite the fact that there’s members of trans alliance and advocacy groups who disagree with your position and disagree with the use of “ASAB”. There’s people within the community who dislike using the term trans as a catch all.
Where do you personally draw the line? Are you going to stop saying ASAB now that you know some people don’t like it? Are you going to keep saying “trans” even though some people feel like it marginalizes the community and feels too informal to discuss complex gender identities?
For whatever reason people online are more interested in being outraged.
I didn’t take umbrage with your original comment. I just pointed out that it’s wrong and you should stop. I was annoyed when you seemed to double down.
Intersex people are just clear that “basic biology” is a non-functioning understanding of what biology is. Intersex people couldn’t exist if what you learned in high school bio was the end. It’s a clear indication that sex is not just some binary thing. It’s a very complex thing. Even non-intersex people have different developments in the growth due to different hormone levels and other things, and we can even control hormone levels artificially. It’s very complex, and the only useful term is AFAB/AMAB, and then more detailed medical records.
Then to cap it off you made sure to declare that I’ve been “properly educated”, so sayeth you. So from here on out, I need to use the right language or… else?
Yeah, use the more accurate language, or else we know you’re choosing not to. Nothings going to happen. Everyone gets to make choices in life. I can’t make you do anything, but from one cis-gendered person to another, it’s not difficult to be better. It’s just a choice.
You’re getting really offended by someone just informing you the language you used was wrong. It wasn’t even a particularly insulting comment.
Where do you personally draw the line? Are you going to stop saying ASAB now that you know some people don’t like it? Are you going to keep saying “trans” even though some people feel like it marginalizes the community and feels too informal to discuss complex gender identities?
I rarely have a use for either term, so I draw the line where it’s useful for others. If you’re a doctor, that’s where it matters, and after gender confirmation, your “sex” is a lot more complicated. After a while or hormone therapy, you’re more akin to your chosen sex than your birth sex. That’s why the “biologically male/female” term isn’t useful. It’s assuming their birth sex is their current sex for medical purposes, but it’s more complex than that. Sex assigned at birth is useful because it limits it to that period specifically, and your medical records tell the whole story.
The AEI article you posted seems to ignore this fact. It seems to say your birth sex is the important factor. It’s just one of many. For future development, the one your hormones correspond with is likely more important.
The CLR article mirrors what I’ve said earlier:
“By referring instead to sex assigned at birth, transgender rights advocates convey that “biological sex” is not simple, static, or binary and that gender identity also has biological aspects.”
For whatever reason people online are more interested in being outraged
I agree. People should be more calm, even when corrected. Being outraged doesn’t help. It only acts to cement our mind in preconceived ideas. Changing our minds when provided more information that counters our previous beliefs is something that should be commended, not fled from.
Got it.
I apologize.
You’re a the most qualified person on the internet for cisgender, trans, and intersex word policing.
Now that I know and if I don’t change, you’ll make sure to report it to the cisgender police for trans activities special victims unit…
It’s interesting you chose the statement “it’s not difficult to be better, it’s just a choice”. You could have started this entire interaction with “hey dude, just a heads up that a lot of transphobes use phrases like ‘biological male’ to invalidate trans identities”, but instead you took the opportunity to speak down to me and made sure I was now “educated” and that I can stop using wrong speak.
Thank God you’re here as an ally to make people question why those of us on this side of the fence can’t even get along internally.
I’m not a trans person, but I’m pretty sure that “assigned X at birth” refers to whatever gender is assigned on one’s birth certificate.
Calling trans women biological males is transphobic hate speech. Not allowed here.
It’s entirely relevant to the conversation. She couldn’t get pregnant, so she didn’t give a shit that women’s reproductive rights were on the table until the leopard ate her face personally. I’m as left as they come, but the virtue signaling you just did is why so many people get so turned off by so much rhetoric of our political side.
It’s not virtue signaling. The language the other person used is what the republicans constantly say when they are describing trans women because they don’t believe trans women are women, and it’s used to take away the rights of trans people, and it’s working.
There are plenty of ways to say that she isn’t cis and doesn’t have a uterus while being respectful – like I just did.
I’m as left as they come, but the virtue signaling you just did is why so many people get so turned off by so much rhetoric of our political side.
I think you want the trans community and its allies to not confront you on dangerous rhetoric then, while they constantly have to fight people on the left and right to keep from having their rights stripped away.
Being an ally means being open to learning when we make mistakes, and the language the other person used wasn’t appropriate. I hope you and others here can understand why.
It was just plain virtue signaling. This comment you made isn’t quite as plain, but it still isn’t helpful.
The difference is, in the first comment you just left it as, “not allowed here”, which is just signaling your virtue, and more importantly, not correcting or helping in any way. I implore you to explain why someone’s verbiage is wrong, not just shut people down with no explanation. Even in this comment, you didn’t offer an alternative for “biological male”, so the person you originally addressed likely will write you off, and keep saying it.
Your approach is just ineffective.
Educate, don’t berate.
Even in this comment, you didn’t offer an alternative for “biological male”
I absolutely did: “trans woman”.
I was educating. It’s 2024 and trans people are dying and having their basic human rights taken away, due in part to the pervasive rhetoric I originally called out. I expect better of people, and transphobic comments on lemmy are not welcome and break the rule of civility in the lemmy.world news community.
Also, you’re telling me - a trans person - that they are virtue signaling about trans issues.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You know how some cis people are fucking morons? We won’t better than y’all.
Is there some republican legislation that makes gender affirming care impossible for a 63 year old?
Yes
Can you be more specific?
The house just made it illegal for trans people to use the bathroom they want in the capital, and Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia have banned people from changing their gender on their ID.
Tennessee also requires an ID to vote, so if a transgender woman shows up with a big old “M” on her state-issued ID, some fake-news-stolen-election minded poll worker can keep her from voting.
Granted, these don’t outlaw hormone therapy or anything, but these are gender affirming actions outlawed by the government.
deleted by creator
legislation to deny hospitals
'member back-alley abortions?
deleted by creator
The left needs to get on board with this. Govt isn’t going to protect you from far right militias when the shit hits the fan.
Cops aren’t required to protect you from anything. Learn how to protect you and yours. And learn how to read situations, always.
Not advocating anything, but there’s a “it could happen here” podcast episode for leftists out there, with some really good info.
AR-15 is a very good gun to get unless you’re in a state like CA. Shotgun sare good too, Mossberg is fairly affordable(btw, you still need to aim with shotguns). Glock 19 for a pistol, just know pistols are harder to use and you will need to train with it more.
I like shotguns, but I don’t think they’re a great defensive tool. Even with massive extenders on the magazine tube, you are getting a max of 8 shots, and reloading quickly is a pipe dream unless you are one of the very few, very highly practiced competition shooters.
They’re going to pardon the militias like Wheels McGee did to that protester murderer in Texas.
Don’t be ableist. There is plenty enough that is actually wrong with him that you could target instead of the fact that he’s disabled.
Nah, dude’s even used his disablement for more scumfuckery. The tree should’ve done a better job, and I hope he can’t fuck anymore.
I can agree that the tree really failed us all.
Can confirm, my wife has expressed an interest. We’re just waiting for the local LGBTQ friendly range to open.
The other local ranges are either run by cops (ACAB) or require NRA memberships to join. Yeah, that’s not happening.
Sometimes you have to open the gun range you wish to see in your neighborhood.
Or something like that. I think Gandhi said it.
Hey, you’re in PDX, right? Do you have recommendations?
The one we’re waiting on is called Wooster Armory in Tigard/Beaverton. Kinda by Washington Square, by the Guitar Center. The gunshop is open, but it looks like they’re having trouble getting the range open. I’m going to pop in and say “Hi!” today and see what the deal is.
Threat Dynamics in Sherwood is good too, I did my AR training there.
Edit Wooster is now saying January for members, February for the public.
Perfect, thank you!
As a fellow PDXer this is valuable information.
Fascinating business opportunity, queer gun shops.
Im a liberal guess who now has a gun safe with multiple guns?
I guess we are making America great again by arming the liberals too?
Also by helping the struggling gun industry
there’s an easy solution: only buy foreign made guns.
The Czech Republic thanks you.
It’s not that easy. The vast majority of imports are banned and the remaining sporting imports are subject to significant restrictions. The overwhelming majority of guns sold in the US are produced in the US, even ones from foreign manufacturers. It’s not that dissimilar to cars.
I wouldn’t say that it’s the ‘vast majority’ of imports that are banned. The Gun Control Act of '68 mostly ends up applying to very small, often cheap, pistols (“Saturday night specials”), and guns that don’t have a “legitimate sporting purpose”. The ATF has said that practical shooting competitions (e.g., two gun, three gun, etc.) doesn’t count as “legitimate sporting purpose”, but the IWI Tavor is sold in the US, and is manufactured in Israel. source for that claim
Right now Turkish guns are having a moment. The Turks are making cheap firearms–sometimes very good, sometimes just cheap-- and sometimes making outright clones of more popular popular firearms. True, you’d be supporting Erdogan, but hey, you can’t always win.
Personally, I’m waiting for someone to start importing KMR pistols. The KMR L-02 Orca OR looks like an improved CZ Shadow II Orange, but I suspect the $3200 price tag is lot steep for most people. :(
Turkey is actively killing and repressing the kurds of Syria, such as Rojava, so if we’re boycotting US manufacturers, might be good to avoid turkish one’s too if possible, to deprive their government of tax revenue.
I’m not really sure if there is an ‘ethical’ choice with the big manufacturers anywhere, just different degrees of bad, though definitely worth indirectly supporting the less bad option.
You could opt for small boutique builders that explicitly support leftists and trans, like KE Arms, but those are few and far between. Best resource I can find is this list from the liberalgunowners reddit wiki.
Alternatively, opt for buying used guns from lefitist gun stores (if you have one near you, or can order from them online to a local ffl). That’s probably the best option from a cost and ethics perspective.
I will personally vouch for Russell at KE Arms; he genuinely believes that the second amendment is for all people, regardless of race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or religion. He’s a good dude, IMO.
But fundamentally, yeah, it’s nearly impossible to buy a firearm that is 100% ethical. I know that Karl Kasarda (InRangeTV) likes Desert Tech, because they’ve been good to IRTV and haven’t given him shit about politics, religion, or affiliation with marginalized groups. I don’t like Desert Tech, because they’re run by the Kingston Clan, which is a fundamentalist Mormon cult. I’m also unwilling to buy from Daniel Defense, because they actively market themselves as being a “Christian corporation”, and I oppose that kind of religious bullshittery.
Point is, you gotta pick and choose.
Sweden: for when you need a gun but don’t want to fund domestic fascism, and also need some cheap furniture while arming yourself …and maybe could I get one of those fighter jets on the side?
I get that but im surrounded by people with guns who could take everything from me if they chose to.
Are you sure you have enough guns?
I have enough to stop a bear or nazi
Fucking FINALLY.
Yes, women should be armed. Gay people should be armed. Trans people should be armed. Religious minorities should be armed. People that are on the political left never should have ceded the right to keep and bear arms to the political right.
I’m planning on getting certified as a firearms instructor through the NRA (because no matter how shitty the NRA-ILA is, the training programs are solid) this coming year so that I can start working with The Pink Pistols and Operation Blazing Spear.
I would strongly suggest that people try reading This Nonviolence Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible.
If you’re one of the people that is considering getting a gun, please listen to the “It Could Happen Here” podcast episode titled, Safe Gun Ownership.
I need a plugin like DownThemAll to just add every book on that page (including "Customers also bought…) to my Goodreads want to read.
Narrative nonfiction has become my jam. New favorite category, especially history.
This would be a genuinely enriching good read for me. Thanks for the good stuff.
Bad ideas are always bad.
It’s only a bad idea when the people who want to hurt you aren’t armed. Sadly, in America, that’s not the case.
Nope, time and again we see law enforcement doesn’t work that way for minorities. The same gun laws that protect the majority are used against those in minorities.
Also gives cops an excuse to kill us. Which they often use.
The kind of cop you are talking about is a coward. They are far less likely to harass protesters when they are open carrying.
Cops fearing for their lives is the #1 reason they pull a gun and shoot
It’s one thing for them to be afraid you might be armed, and quite another to know you are armed and surrounded by allies who are also armed.
Works for gangs all the time yeah?
Well yes, and they fear for their lives so goddamn much of the time because they’re poorly trained cowards who are used to being the high school bully and the wife beater and never having their authority threatened.
A very american perspective, tbh. From soneone in a country where you’re not allowed to carry a gun around as a random idiot, it’s so wild to read.
Then again, I also understand that this external perspective has little meaning. You can’t magically wish the laws + all those guns away, and like in any arms race you can’t be entirely unarmed until you can enact a more permanent de-armament solution later.
It’s actually a lot less common for regular citizens to open carry in the US than some might think from US News. It’s unusual in a protest, and almost always a far right thing. It has been used effectively by the left, but not at scale in the last 50 years.
The most effective protest movements usually have two approaches going on at the same time, one that threatens violence, and one that is strictly non violent. Non violent movements tend to be ignored until negotiations with them are seen as more favorable than dealing with an armed movement.
Those cops will kill you, armed or not. Less likely, if armed.
For example, see: DFW John Brown Gun Club shutting down cops who were looking to de-home a house less camp, by being armed and present.
That’s never been the case. They only need an excuse
I have you an example where it was the case.
Another example are the BPP in Cali back in the day… the entire reason we have gun control laws in fact.
Well, no. Not the entire reason. California resulted in the Mulford Act in '67 which banned open carry of firearms, but the Gun Control Act of '68 wasn’t directly related to it. The GCA was more about commerce in the wake of Kennedy’s assassination, because the Carcano rifle that Oswald used to assassinate Kennedy had been bought as mail order. (And note that the NRA was in favor of both at the time; it wasn’t until the 80s that the NRA took a hard turn to the right. They used to mostly be about marksmanship and hunting rather than political activism.) (Depending on whether or not 6.5mm Carcano ammunition is manufactured in the US, and isn’t readily available in the US, a 6.5mm Carcano rifle might be legally an antique and not subject to the GCA provisions, which is kind of ironic.) One of the effects of the GCA was to ban the importation of small, cheaply made, and readily concealed pistols; those regulations remain in effect today, and pistols that don’t pass a fairly extensive checklist can’t be imported. The GCA was preceded by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which had originally been intended to functionally ban handguns (which is why short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns are part of the act), but that got stripped out prior to the vote. That’s the act that originally made it very expensive to own a machine gun, silencer, SBS/SBR (and still makes it a pain in the ass).
But, to your point, Reagan was the governor of California at the time, and he was a flaming racist (…who concealed it under ‘law and order’ and ‘welfare queen’ language), and the Black Panthers being armed freaked him the fuck out. he was responsible for signing the Firearm Owners Protection Act in '86, which did some good things as far as the now-activist NRA was concerned–like making it much easier to transport firearms across state lines–but also banned machine guns produced after 1986 from being transferred to private owners under the NFA of '34.
Really diving into the history of gun regulations and politics in the US is incredibly complicated and dense. There are bad actors on both sides–notably Michael A. Bellesiles and John Lott Jr.–so getting accurate information ends up being really hard.
American ‘solutions’ for American problems
Removed by mod
It’s a shame they’re inherently dangerous, hence why they aren’t used anymore. They have a high risk of spreading infection when blood/fluid ricochets back into the device while administering a dose. Thus contaminating the next one to be administered. Basically, the risk isn’t worth the convenience.
I still think they’re pretty cool. They’re the real life inspiration for Star Trek’s hypospray. Many people would love a device like this since fear of needles is quite common.
One colleague of mine has a huge fear of needles. She basically had to be held down by four people while getting her covid shot. It was necessary, she consented to the manhandling… but a device like this would’ve made it a lot less stressful for her to get the shot.
Yep. Still have my dimesized scar
Removed by mod
What would you do in this situation?
Use knives and poison
Stuff that doesn’t take 10 levels into rogue to work
The whole Russian project was to have our “polite society” collapse as we, as Americans, lost all faith in our institutions and turned against one another and in the process, also lost any kind of collective identity, which makes us a weaker target externally. That happened.
It’s crazy to me, looking back, how much this was openly discussed along the way, as it successfully happened in slow motion over the last 10-15 years - wasn’t there also a book released that just laid their strategy bare? If there are historians in the future, will be amazing to read the perspective on all of this with time and analysis from those not trapped within the cycle of death and hopelessness.
It works because those of us who read and learn about things like this are a minority of the population. Not one large enough to counteract the effect either.
I think our society in reality is fine mostly; gun sales to conservatives under the Obama administration surged due to their fears at the time; now it happens again just in reverse.
The key problem is that the internet is separating people and allowing foreign actors and cynical domestic interests to create filters of what people hear and see.
you count yourself among a learned few then you should go out and create local events and spread local news as much as possible. People need to interact outside of their bubbles more and they would come to see mostly that they are both reasonable. It is only the facts that are current in question between the two isles, not necessarily the principles.
Think there’s a lot of false premise and privileged POV in your statements here about your perception of reality.
Certainly not “fine mostly” by the major tangible measures that might contribute to a blanket statement like that attempting some basis in evidence. Maybe most counter to your position is the fact that the entire world is sliding right generally, most likely as an immature, frightened reaction to COVID-blamed inflation and opportunistic corporate price gouging. Among that, the lesser informed likely think that there is some “conservative” force that would reign things in - It’s the idea that “Daddy will fix it”, but in reality daddy never actually did fix anything when you were small, you just felt safe when he was there when you were a child. And Daddy isn’t here anymore anyway - the person that would be daddy is headbutting windows at the US Capitol and asking Siri “how do you make pipe-bombs filled with liberal shit”
Also false equivalency with the Obama guns things - in that case, a lot of racist, conservative dickheads stockpiled weapons/ammo as a gut reaction and frankly a hope for a “race war”, marinating in their always assumed victimhood, simply because a HALF black person was president. Versus now, where severely, actively threatened minority communities feel that they will potentially be forced into camps because of credible threats by the presumptive president elect gop do just that. So yes, now a few, exaggerated by media, are getting gun training and basic weapons out of fear of the collapsing world they observe first hand around them as the very real threat of someone kicking in their door in the not too distant future.
But I’m sure things are “fine mostly” for you. 401k doing okay? Still get your two full weeks in the Bahamas this summer vacation? Mom and Dad still paying your car insurance and cell phone bills on time?
Yes it is called the foundations of geopolitics, written by Aleksandr Dugin. Its free to read on the internet archive.
Cult tactics. You get your targets to alienate themselves from the rest of society, their friends and family. You get them isolated and then you become their family. It’s a mix of Republican think tanks and Democrats taking advantage of whatever the other side is. Abortion, LGBTQ, Racism. Obviously bad actors from across the globe have stoked the fires and accelerated it, but it’s been a political tactic since forever. Competing interests do exist, but not at the societal level. Political actors have convinced the religious that they are being oppressed by the “other side” and that they should be able to spread their ideas because they see other groups having their ideas being imposed on people. In reality out groups such as LGBTQ want the equal rights those religious people enjoy,. It’s just been taken to an extreme because it’s a divisive topic and religious conservatives have been told that their manufactured beliefs are wrong. In reality, they should support those out groups because they enjoy the constitutional protection that those groups are asking for.
Remember that step 2 is to practice!
At this rate America’s 4B movement is gonna stand for “bang bang bang bang”…
I thought the whole point was not to bang?
Stop banging and start banging!
So anyway, I started blasting…
May I offer you an egg in this trying times?
Start blastin
i support this line of thinking. Why fuck people when you can just shoot them instead, wait…
Guns!, the cause and solution to most of America’s problems.
Nah, man, the ultimate cause is always anti-black racism.
Along with weaponized religion and stupidity of course
Removed by mod
Stay strapped or get clapped…
It feels like they picked the worst screenshot intentionally though when talking about that YouTuber…
Like, maybe it’s a new kind of magnifier that you flip up to use instead of off to the side to not use. But that AR just doesn’t look like whoever built it knew what they were doing.
Like the BLM protests where it was obvious people went out and bought ARs just for the event and didn’t even put sights on beforehand.
That being said don’t wander around gun YouTube on your account it only takes a couple videos for the algorithm to decide you’re a gun nut, and that comes along with a bunch of other rightwing videos, because normally it does.
But Reagan is the one who passed Cali’s gun laws, and he did so because people he didn’t like were marching with guns.
Obviously it would have made more sense to start when Biden was in office, but it seems like unless protestors carry guns, the cops will just beat them without a second thought.
If they even think some have guns tho… Cops won’t do shit.
If cops get return fire in a (leftist) protest/riot, they’ll come back with MRAPs and live rounds and re-enact Kent State. They live for that moment.
Oh, and that magnifier is on a Unity FAST mount, and yes, it flips up to get in position. It’s on a higher sight plane along with the Eotech to help with shooting while using things like night vision goggles, and a lot of people say it’s more natural and comfortable for fast shooting in general. It’s actually some Gucci shit and looks squared away to me.
Weird, I never saw one of those before, but if it works it’s way better than hanging off to the side.
And I think you’re forgetting how much cops are cowards. They won’t go into a school when it’s one kid with an AR and they have a seat team.
They’ll say they want a firefight all fucking day, when they get the opportunity they shit their pants.
But we know how they treat unarmed protestors, and the difference when there’s guns present.
Checking 2 boxes out of 4 from the Libertarian dream
I have a conundrum, maybe people in this thread can weigh in.
I’m a woman living in an area with a small but loud MAGA faction and useless police who are probably also Trump supporters. I’m also not white.
Hunting is common here, and although I’ve never been I do know how to shoot and have access to classes if I want to improve. We also have friends and family with firearms and a couple of them live nearby.
I feel like I should get a gun. I know how to use one and I want to be able to protect myself if necessary. But I’m scared of firearms. Something about them disturbs me. Maybe it’s the likelihood of someone dying once a gun comes out. Maybe it’s just a fear, however unfounded, that I can’t or shouldn’t handle such a powerful tool. But the reason behind the feeling doesn’t matter so much as my ability to overcome it, and I’m not sure I can. If I had money to burn I’d buy one just to see how I feel, but I don’t so I can’t.
In short, I’m torn. I want to be able to just get a gun for peace of mind and call it a day, but I fear that as soon as the gun is in my house I will become a nervous wreck and that will defeat the whole purpose.
I’d love to hear from anyone who feels the same or has overcome this fear.
Training and familiarization helped me a lot with that exact feeling. I had the same feeling about circular/table saws. My dad was a carpenter, and those things freaked me the hell out - one tiny mistake could have devastating consequences, and that was all I could think about when I was around them. But with careful instruction and exposure, learing to use and be more comfortable with them, that feeling was gradually replaced by calm and confidence, and they changed in my mind from these objects of terror into valuable tools. There was still fear, but it was a healthy, respectful fear.
I went through the exact same process with guns as well. Some classes with a good instructor, giving you a chance to get more comfortable and familiar before you bring a gun into your home, could help a lot.
I don’t own a gun and feel the same as you. I am leaning toward getting a gun safe and keeping the gun and ammo locked up and hidden. If it gathers dust that’s great, but having it there if I need it would be a comfort I think.
You do not want to have a gun that you’re not comfortable with. Having to deal with a high stress situation and then trying to use a gun when you don’t have brain-dead levels of familiarity with it is asking the trouble. Luckily it’s fairly cheap to build most of the muscle-memory with dry-fire and handling drills. But if you plan on using it for home defense or personal protection, you need to be prepared so that your mind can focus on other things during your troubles.
Comfort for what? An armed mob laying siege on your house? If someone breaks in unexpectedly are you going to ask him to wait while you open the safe?
I mean realistically, I think people who worry about burglars are paranoid and the armed mob scenario is also silly. i think its more about helping neighbors out if you see something crazy happening nearby.
A thing to maybe consider is to get a subscription at a range and check out a rental firearm to plink on the range. You lose some money in the experience like going to a movie or whatever, but you’re not out the full price of the firearm. Then you can decide how you feel. Granted, active fire is much different than object that sits on shelf. They’re quite docile when stationary. Even so, it’s just psychologically weird normalizing the thought of, “I have a device on this shelf that has only one purpose, to delete life.” Sure, hammers, nailguns, knives, etc. can be used for killing, but they have a useful primary purpose. Guns don’t.
Yeah I’ve been considering that, but I’m not sure the ranges near me are women friendly spaces and I don’t think I’m in the right head space to voluntarily push into a male dominated space like that. I wonder if there’s a good way to screen potential ranges, should I just come straight out and ask if they’re welcoming?
Having a life ending device just “sitting on the shelf” is definitely my biggest issue. I have an ex who would threaten to kill himself whenever our relationship was on the rocks, and while my husband is a very stable person I still have a hard time shaking the feeling that weapons+men=bad news. Though I asked if he was comfortable with me having a gun safe that he cannot unlock and he said he supports whatever is going to make me feel safest atm.
I just hate that this is where we are.
Take a reputable course and learn about guns. They are dangerous in the hands of irresponsible untrained yokels but if you are smart and informed they can empower you and safeguard your well being.
Guns have traditionally been a pacifier for anxious right-wing weirdos who are afraid of Nancy Pelosi, but they are also a good hedge against those right-wing weirdos and will be a pacifier for your anxiety about them
