this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
439 points (100.0% liked)
196
17458 readers
1029 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW:
NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed.
Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex].
Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because you stated that, on the presumption their actions prevented transphobia, that person would be an ally. But that presumption can only be fact checked by themselves anyway; Does this not mean then, that a person should have the right to label themselves an ally if they self-assess their actions as allyship?
Or does someone have to ally-check each of their actions once performed with some sort of... council or committee, as I have here?
It's not that deep, we don't need a rigorous philosophically consistent way to measure allyship.
That's fair.
But this post posits that we do need to get philosophical as does your initial post. By claiming there's "theoretical allyship" we call into question the efficacy of small actions performed by allies and serve to weaken the cause.
Any action is action. No matter how small.