471
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
471 points (100.0% liked)
News
36063 readers
3826 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The thing is, growing up in an evangelical church they don’t want these people getting breast reduction surgery either. they firmly believe that any change to the body is going against God’s will regardless of the physical or mental harm it may cause.
pretty sure they're okay with women getting boob implants, though.
Idk, the #1 thing people said behind Dolly Parton's back and held against her was that she had fake tits.
People are awful. If there’s nothing that they can be mean about, they’ll make shit up. I suspect most of that was more because she was rich/famous/influential in her own right rather than being tied to a husband.
(though she’s married. I looked it up outta curiosity. He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page…
Dolly's husband has never been a part of her public persona. He's always been in the background and almost everyone has respected his/her choice on the matter.
absolutely true but Dolly Parton did not have to face transphobic harassment and violence
very very very important distinction
That one did oddly enough draw less of a stink, though it did still get whispered about when it suited one’s purpose.
Except male genital mutilation, aka circumcision. (Please don't take this as me saying FGM and MGM are equally bad. FGM is much, much worse.)
There are other forms of MGM too. Fortunately most of them are rare these days. Castration, subincision, penectomy.
And then there’s intersex people. That are routinely subject to “corrective surgery” in infancy. As adults they tend to be firmly of the opinion they should have been left alone and that the surgeries were harmful.
IMO bodily integrity and autonomy is a fundamental human right that should be absolutely respected for every human being.
https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets
There are five grades of FGM; MGM is equivalent to hoodectomy, which is grade III.
The worst FGM is much, much worse that MGM, but the least-worst FGM is much less-worse than MGM.
where do you cite this five grade model?
the world health organization is not quite in line with you here (CW, hopefully obvious explicit discussion of mutilation) thanks !
Hm, it's been a while since I've been active in this space, I'm quoting from memory. I'll look up some stuff.
ty!
Honestly, that's only because the Bible says it's a thing that should be done (apparently)
The Hebrew Bible maybe, but it's pretty clearly outlined by Paul in the new testament that non-jewish Catholics definitely don't have to follow Jewish custom (and don't have to be circumcised in particular)
True. It's been a while, heh.
You're good, I just think it's worth saying out loud. There's probably plenty of parents who do think the Bible says it, even though it doesn't
this should hilight to us the outsized effect transphobia has on discourse.
if we were to believe the line that “we’re just concerned about people getting mutilated” we must naturally expect to see that 97% margin of outrage at breast implants, hair implants, weight management surgery etc. for cis folk.
and we don’t. here and there you might hear an evangelical getting upsetti spaghetti avout Ozempic et al but transphobic talking points dominate, in vast disproportion to actual individual cases.
Although they're usually fine with things like wearing glasses and getting stents. Odd, isn't it?
Well except for giant fake titties, God wants those. If we can get those on some minors, I'm pretty sure Republicans would shut the fuck up for decades.
Oh they absolutely do. The alternative is men with breasts. They’ll say they don’t, but when the time comes to accept cis men’s bodies when they fall outside “male” expectations they won’t.
My mother is fond of saying "God doesn't make junk". Easily disproven whether or not you believe in a god, but she's a "if I don't like it, it didn't happen" variety of Trump supporter, so I err on the side of changing the subject over arguing.
I'm so sorry you have to deal with that.
There's no way I could continue having a relationship with anyone who is a trump supporter.
Thank you. It is really difficult. It's especially hard to find the line. (Un)fortunately for me she's always been unreasonable per se, so I already had her at arm's length before Trump flopped onto the scene.
My mother (religious) once told me my tattoos make her sad. There are only two that are visible on a forearm (the third is under my shirt). I told her that they make me feel happy. She’s never brought it up again. But hers is less fervent, still rooted in the same origin.
I'm guessing that's because the Bible says no tattoos in the same book where it says not to eat pork and shellfish, but Christians only believe the passages in the Pentateuch if they're okay with them.
Bible says no pork, pork is ok.
Bible says not to be gay in the exact same book, being gay is an abomination unto the lord.
What it actually says is not to lay with a man as you would with a woman. It's not about being gay, it's about topping!
This appears to be an issue with accurate reporting. Considerations like this would make the data make a lot more sense.
The problem is the interpretation by those running the study.
I’m not sure I am perfectly following you—what should the authors have said?
I am definitely mistakenly misreading you here, sorry for the inconvenience!
(significantly edited to reflect my intent; also if any others could help me out, i don’t mean to bug this person and annoy them)
just because I had something to add doesn’t mean I missed you point.
well i am missing your point i guess, sorry. could you rephrase what you are saying ? im quite lost
edit: like what is “the problem” involved here? what are the journalists saying that is misleading?
Yes, despite it being very simple and my having explained it clearly…
No, being “confusing and distracting” by muddying the waters was you whole point. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith. It’s just that I called you out.
Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
i literally don’t know what you are talking about, lol. just asking for clarification because my initial reading was clearly wrong :)
Sealioning
Just asking questions
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
Your dissembling changes nothing. It only confirms my claim that you’re arguing in bad faith.
Thanks for that!
ah there’s our miscommunication! i am not arguing anything i just misunderstood at first and offered a possible solution/additional context
but i was wrong so i issued my apologies and asked for clarification :)
you stated there was something that was a problem with the reporting, and i inaccurately surmised that it had to do with trans people experiencing hate. what was it in reality?