Light @light@qoto.org

Contrary to popular misconception, critics of the transgender movement do not disagree that trans people have "rights" as a monolith. They're talking about whether trans people have specific rights including:
- not being misgendered
- tax-payer funded gender surgery/hormones
- (specifically children) to get surgery at all without their parents consent (or with)
I don't definitely disagree with all of the above, but it gives you a sense of the reasonable criticism people can have with the concept of "trans rights" as "allies" actually mean it (not as the basic human rights they claim to mean).
I do definitely disagree with the right to not be misgendered, as that goes against the right to free speech, which I value a lot.

Trans rights I definitely agree with:
- having surgery with their own money as an adult
- social transition (excluding the bit where they force other people to play along calling them by their preferred pronouns using laws such as the German self-identity law)
- freedom from violence from bigots

Human rights are not just a stand-in for "things I like". They actually mean something. Namely, government force applied to protect a property of a human being or group thereof (legal right), or a moral obligation on someone to do or not do something to/for someone (moral right).
A legal right to not be misgendered means that the government passes laws prohibiting misgendering trans people. Think about that.

noc.social is down

@N33R
>Matthew 19:12 (NIV)
>For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
>Eunuchs supposedly did not generally have loyalties to the military, the aristocracy, or a family of their own (having neither offspring nor in-laws, at the very least). They were thus seen as more trustworthy and less interested in establishing a private dynasty. Because their condition usually lowered their social status, they could also be easily replaced or killed without repercussion.

Why anyone would identify with this is beyond me.

It was a bad joke. I deleted it.

(This was a joke, in case you couldn't tell)

Good definitions of political terms:
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729324
"""
On definitions: here’s a set I find helpful, although certainly incomplete.

“Liberals” are focused on equality of rights among people. What count as rights is heavily contested, but in general universal rights are the liberal focus. Liberals are opposed to privilege (private law-where class/status are legally important) and fairly are criticized for “the law, in it’s magnificent equality, forbids both rich and poor from begging for bread and sleeping under bridges.”

“Leftists/socialists” are focused on economic inequalities, generally influenced by Marx to some degree. Leftists are opposed to economic inequality, and often see it as a cause of social/rights-based inequalities rather than seeing those as separate things. Leftists are opposed to difference-making inequalities in private property, and are fairly criticized for “Wonderful theory, wrong species.”

“Progressives” are focused on social/identity-based inequalities, often based on feminist and critical race theorist social critiques. Progressives see economic inequality as entangled with social inequality, but see social inequality as the more immediate concern. Progressives tend to focus on the social and institutional factors that maintain social inequalities, and to be very focused on ensuring that all institutions serve the needs of society. Leftists criticize progressives for focusing on the wrong problem; liberals criticize them for re-inventing privilege.
"