more importantly he peddled neo-Nazi conspiracies and claimed Jews control the media, education, non-profits, etc. and are pushing "cultural Marxism"

this guy was pushing neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories - it's so much worse than comparing abortions to the Holocaust, lol

All dates should be formatted according to ISO 8601 standard (YYYY-MM-DD).

Months should be adjusted so September, October, November, and December are the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th month respectively (so the literally meaning of the names accords with their actual meaning).

Not cleaning your kitchen knife after sharpening is trashy and contaminates your food with metal shavings.

yes, she's involved in the production and will definitely profit from it

Considering dolls is a term applied only to trans women, he should have just said "a term of endearment for trans women". The only reason he didn't is because he's anti-trans, and maybe he doesn't even understand that "dolls" is a term specific to trans women, or that trans men even exist, a lot of anti-trans bigots are obsessed with trans women and think the only trans people are trans women; there are estimated to be equal numbers of trans men as trans women, they just don't get the same attention.

The bathroom debate shows this mindset, anti-trans activist want trans women to use men's restrooms, but they aren't thinking about the fact that those same laws and policies force trans men into women's restrooms, leading to this kind of situation:

So the anti-trans movement claims they are keeping men out of women's restrooms, while doing exactly the opposite.

I think the anti-trans movement wants to claim that the entire idea of trans people is ideologically driven, but they have it in reverse - the gender binary and anti-trans movement is ideologically driven, while the position that trans people exists and should have gender-affirming care is based on actual empirical evidence. The science shows reality is much more complicated than the gender binary, and that being trans is biologically determined, genetically inherited, and part of natural human variation throughout our history as a species.

So it seems acknowledging the reality and gender of trans people is not so much ideologically driven as much as it is more aligned with reality than the status quo of assigning gender according to a model of binary sex based an a quick inspection of genitals at birth, which we know is ideologically driven. The only reason to reject the undisputed science is for religious and political reasons, there is no actual debate or ambiguity about the science. Every single major medical and scientific association endorses gender affirming care for minors and adults, there is a firm consensus on this. These organizations are typically conservative, not "woke", and they only support those treatments because they are the only known effective treatments of gender dysphoria.

The anti-trans movement has more in common with young earth creationism, the anti-vaxx movement, and other anti-science movements, which are often politically motivated and intersect with conservative forms of Christianity. These are truly ideologically based movements, and they support views of reality based not on what is empirically demonstrated but rather based on a dogmatic interpretation of religious texts.

For example, Matt Walsh's anti-trans film What is a Woman was compared to antivax films like VAXXED or the anti-evolution film Expelled!.

they're no longer following the Constitution, in case anyone has noticed ...

Meaning there isn't an instance for women, nor are there multiple communities - as far as I know there's just this one community.

Trans bathroom bans are ultimately just a means of driving trans people from public life entirely.

This is not an exaggeration, the anti-trans movement literally aims to "eradicate [trans people] from public life entirely", those are their words.

Here are some citations, numbers, and evidence to back up what you're saying and why we should view trans bathroom bans as genocidal rather than about safety, like anti-trans activists claim:

When laws permit transgender people to access sex-segregated spaces in accordance with their gender identities, crime rates do not increase. There is no association between trans-inclusive policies and more crime. As one of us wrote in a recent paper, this is likely because, just like cisgender folks, “transgender people use locker rooms and restrooms to change clothes and go to the bathroom,” not for sexual gratification or predatory reasons.

Conversely, when trans people are forced by law to use sex-segregated spaces that align with the sex assigned to them at birth instead of their gender identity, two important facts should be noted.

First, no studies show that violent crime rates against cisgender women and girls in such spaces decrease. In other words, cisgender women and girls are no safer than they would be in the absence of anti-trans laws. Certainly, the possibility exists that a cisgender man might pose as a woman to go into certain spaces under false pretenses. But that same possibility remains regardless of whether transgender people are lawfully permitted in those spaces.

Second, trans people are significantly more likely to be victimized in sex-segregated spaces than are cisgender people. For instance, while incarcerated in facilities designated for men, trans women are nine to 13 times as likely to be sexually assaulted as the men with whom they are boarded.

...

In society at large, between 84% and 90% of all crimes of sexual violence are perpetrated by someone the victim knows, not a stranger lurking in the shadows – or the showers or restroom stalls. But trans and nonbinary people feel very unsafe in bathrooms and locker rooms, though others experience relative safety there. In fact, the largest study of its kind found that upward of 75% of trans men and 64% of trans women reported that they routinely avoid public restrooms to minimize their chances of being harassed or assaulted.

from: https://theconversation.com/baseless-anti-trans-claims-fuel-adoption-of-harmful-laws-two-criminologists-explain-206570

These laws aren't designed to protect cis women, they are designed to police gender (this impacts cis people too!) and eliminate trans people.

Relevant facts:

• she self identifies as a "moderate conservative", also identifying as a "centrist" who cares about "family values"
• she is a devout Catholic
• she lives in Illinois and traveled to Florida just to do this
• before going to Florida, she sent letters to lawmakers stating her intention to break the law, including when and where she would and a photo of herself (police were thus posted at the location and time she indicated, hence why she was arrested)
• she explicitly identifies as not a "political activist"
• she is breaking the law because she thinks it is wrong (she is engaging in civil disobedience), though she did not expect to actually be arrested
• she didn't consult any legal or advocacy groups before doing this
• she was arrested upon going into the restroom and washing her hands, after cops posted at the bathroom told her not to; she was held in the men's ward of the Leon County Detention Facility overnight, and she faces 60 days of incarceration if convicted
• she is back in Illinois but will have to fly back to Florida for hearings
• she didn't expect to be arrested and regrets doing it

source: Tampa Bay Times (archive.ph link)

How would people who live outside of Europe know what Europeans are not ready to hear? As someone who lives in the U.S. I know only a couple of people IRL who live in Europe.

The thing my European friend was not ready to hear was that all his complaining about the social programs in his home country and the high taxes and so on comes across as entitled and spoiled. Because he's never lived without the benefits of a state that will provide healthcare and so on, he is free to complain about his privileges and glorify the U.S. as a place where individual citizens fill in the responsibilities that the government should fulfill. He sees this as an unmitigated good, because he thinks it means more civic engagement.

What he doesn't understand is that this results in most people falling through the cracks, and until he falls through one of those cracks himself it won't be real to him how bad it is to not be able to afford losing wages because you are sick or injured, or what it's like when you can't afford to see a doctor when you break a bone or get so sick you can't leave your house.

That said, I'm not sure every European needs to hear this, or that they're not ready to hear it - just this one person seemed to be a little delusional and to have idealized the U.S. as some kind of right-wing libertarian utopia.

I think the point of the joke might be more that an attempt to start a matrilineal naming scheme is foiled somewhat from the fact that the maiden name of the mother is derived from her father, i.e. you can't escape that the last names all come from patrilineal sources for generations.

I think the "left" they are talking about are more like tankies or at least socialists who lean towards authoritarianism.

I know some people in my local DSA who uncritically support the idea that Russia is incapable of imperialism and who probably would have supported Assad because they were an ally of Russia.

This article is written by James Hayton, a professor at a business school focused on "innovation" and "entrepreneurship", and who received funding from the Nuffield Foundation, founded by William Morris, one of the largest financiers of the British fascist movement.

Just to be clear about the ideological commitments of the author and his financiers. I would suggest taking this article with a lot of skepticism.