Growing Up Alyssa(rosenzweig.io)
rosenzweig.io
Growing Up Alyssa
https://rosenzweig.io/blog/growing-up-alyssa.html
99 comments
This is a bad moment to be playing the enlightened centrist.
The main point is that one party in particular is pushing discriminatory legislation against a minority group and demonizing them. That counts as oppression to me. People who vote for said party are therefore voting for those things - voting for despite not supporting such policies is still enabling said discrimination.
Your response seems victim blamey. Yes, the post is ascribing the worst motives at times. The cynic in me sees the anti-trans campaign as a political distraction from other issues that actually affect the voting base's lives. Doesn't change the fact it's hurting and likely taking human lives.
You compare the situation to Hutus and Tutsis. In this case she is a Tutsi, warning about the increasing threat of Hutus - whose rhetoric becomes more violent by the day - and is asking for help.
The main point is that one party in particular is pushing discriminatory legislation against a minority group and demonizing them. That counts as oppression to me. People who vote for said party are therefore voting for those things - voting for despite not supporting such policies is still enabling said discrimination.
Your response seems victim blamey. Yes, the post is ascribing the worst motives at times. The cynic in me sees the anti-trans campaign as a political distraction from other issues that actually affect the voting base's lives. Doesn't change the fact it's hurting and likely taking human lives.
You compare the situation to Hutus and Tutsis. In this case she is a Tutsi, warning about the increasing threat of Hutus - whose rhetoric becomes more violent by the day - and is asking for help.
If you're familiar with the history of the Rwandan genocide, it was not simply a matter of the vulnerable Tutsis being massacred by the evil Hutus.
The genocide was the culmination of a hundred-plus years of power shifting from one group to the other. When the Tutsis were in power, they made life hell for the Hutus, and when the Hutus were in power, they made life hell for the Tutsis. Each group came to see the other as deserving of that punishment because of the way they had been mistreated when the other group was in power.
But my broader point is a criticism of the major-party duopoly, where every single social issue, economic issue, military issue, civil rights issue, etc. gets boiled down to these two choices. And often the philosophy that underpins them is inconsistent. So it's no wonder that each party is able to point out the inconsistencies and evils of its opposition; our political system is designed to make that as easy as possible. And the politicians who run within those parties benefit from that polarization.
The genocide was the culmination of a hundred-plus years of power shifting from one group to the other. When the Tutsis were in power, they made life hell for the Hutus, and when the Hutus were in power, they made life hell for the Tutsis. Each group came to see the other as deserving of that punishment because of the way they had been mistreated when the other group was in power.
But my broader point is a criticism of the major-party duopoly, where every single social issue, economic issue, military issue, civil rights issue, etc. gets boiled down to these two choices. And often the philosophy that underpins them is inconsistent. So it's no wonder that each party is able to point out the inconsistencies and evils of its opposition; our political system is designed to make that as easy as possible. And the politicians who run within those parties benefit from that polarization.
Who is making life hell for the Republicans, other than the Republican Party itself?
Thanks for pointing out the tensions that existed in Rwanda that led up to it. I was particularly analogizing on the point just before the genocide, where the faction in power were unpersoning and calling for violence against their later victims.
In the end the analogy is flawed either way you spin it. Democrat and Republican voters are not ethnic/cultural groups in a country recently ravaged by colonialism.
But again, I am noting that someone is complaining about increasing oppression against their minority group, and you are lamenting about them playing into party politics.
Human rights are more important than the issue of having a healthy political culture. I thought it was inappropriate and out of touch to focus on the latter in this context.
In the end the analogy is flawed either way you spin it. Democrat and Republican voters are not ethnic/cultural groups in a country recently ravaged by colonialism.
But again, I am noting that someone is complaining about increasing oppression against their minority group, and you are lamenting about them playing into party politics.
Human rights are more important than the issue of having a healthy political culture. I thought it was inappropriate and out of touch to focus on the latter in this context.
In Northern Ireland, there are two sides, the Irish Republicans and the Unionists. Twenty years ago peace was brought to this part of the world by bringing in power sharing. Had this happened in Rwanda, would the genocide have occurred?
gcmn(1)
They're not assigning the worst possible motivations to people who don't vote like them.
It's actually the opposite, they're trying to speak to the people who might vote Republican and who may not realise what they are voting for.
It's actually the opposite, they're trying to speak to the people who might vote Republican and who may not realise what they are voting for.
I have a very hard time believing they don't realize who they're voting for. This isn't a secret. They're quite explicit about it.
I had been willing to believe that they simply put other issues first, which was merely selfish and short-sighted -- the kind of thing a democracy can be moderately robust for. But the culture war is front page news every day in every medium, and I simply cannot believe any more that it's not a deliberate choice.
I had been willing to believe that they simply put other issues first, which was merely selfish and short-sighted -- the kind of thing a democracy can be moderately robust for. But the culture war is front page news every day in every medium, and I simply cannot believe any more that it's not a deliberate choice.
The Republican Party is moving in a very dark direction, and has been for years now. This isn't just red team/blue team partisan cheerleading. This isn't Trump Derangement syndrome. Both parties aren't equal in this regard. I think the author's fear is justified and maybe the onus should be on Republicans to finally smell the rot in their own house instead of on everyone else to be polite about it.
> ...Republicans to finally smell the rot in their own house...
I'm not sure it even matters currently. I've got friends who vote Republican, knowing stuff about their party/candidate which makes the uncomfortable (or worse). They still keep voting Republican, mostly because "democrats will kill babies and take away my guns and social security!". They've had more than a decade of "worst motives" ascribed to the opposition.
---
Republicans: decades of "they'll take away our guns!"
Democrats: "that's not going to happen."
Decades later, doesn't happen.
---
Democrats: decades of "they're going to take away your access to abortion/contraception"
Republicans: "meh... nah... why are you so paranoid?"
Decades later... access to abortion heavily restricted, on track for total bans in many regions.
I'm not sure it even matters currently. I've got friends who vote Republican, knowing stuff about their party/candidate which makes the uncomfortable (or worse). They still keep voting Republican, mostly because "democrats will kill babies and take away my guns and social security!". They've had more than a decade of "worst motives" ascribed to the opposition.
---
Republicans: decades of "they'll take away our guns!"
Democrats: "that's not going to happen."
Decades later, doesn't happen.
---
Democrats: decades of "they're going to take away your access to abortion/contraception"
Republicans: "meh... nah... why are you so paranoid?"
Decades later... access to abortion heavily restricted, on track for total bans in many regions.
> The Republican Party is moving in a very dark direction, and has been for years now.
Since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the Republican Party decided to seize the opportunity it had failed to exploit in previous splits between the Democrats’ White supremacist faction and the rest of the broadened post-New Deal party by offering the former a new partisan home that would focus on the issues the Democrats had become inconsistent on.
Since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the Republican Party decided to seize the opportunity it had failed to exploit in previous splits between the Democrats’ White supremacist faction and the rest of the broadened post-New Deal party by offering the former a new partisan home that would focus on the issues the Democrats had become inconsistent on.
The Republican Party is moving in a very dark direction, and has been for years now.
Decades.
It's really hard to put a starting date on it. I think of it as beginning in the 1990s. But that's a follow-in from the late 60s, when civil rights caused the re-orientation of the parties. And before that, the anti-communist movement which upset the post-Civil War alignment.
Regardless... I have memories of the 80s and early 90s when it felt competitive and rude but not utterly hopeless. Since then it has seemed to me that it has grown monotonically worse -- and I see no reason to think that the direction is going to change.
Decades.
It's really hard to put a starting date on it. I think of it as beginning in the 1990s. But that's a follow-in from the late 60s, when civil rights caused the re-orientation of the parties. And before that, the anti-communist movement which upset the post-Civil War alignment.
Regardless... I have memories of the 80s and early 90s when it felt competitive and rude but not utterly hopeless. Since then it has seemed to me that it has grown monotonically worse -- and I see no reason to think that the direction is going to change.
> It's really hard to put a starting date on it. I think of it as beginning in the 1990s. But that's a follow-in from the late 60s, when civil rights caused the re-orientation of the parties.
Pretty much nailed it: the 1990s is when the new partisan alignment had pretty much shaken out, the 1960s and particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was the trigger for the second part of the double realignment leading to that new alignment from the one that had held basically from Reconstruction; the first trifger starting with the Great Depression and more specifically Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition.
Pretty much nailed it: the 1990s is when the new partisan alignment had pretty much shaken out, the 1960s and particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was the trigger for the second part of the double realignment leading to that new alignment from the one that had held basically from Reconstruction; the first trifger starting with the Great Depression and more specifically Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition.
It started with George Bush senior. He basically undid the optimistic conservatism of Reagan (small government, favor individual liberty, Constitutional originalism...), and reverted to his own just-play-to-win style that gave us Dick Cheney and Neoconservatism.
Trump's populist tribalism stuck the knife into the conservative movement. The heart's still beating, but it's faint.
Trump's populist tribalism stuck the knife into the conservative movement. The heart's still beating, but it's faint.
I find your last analogy kind of interesting. If it were 1994, and the Tutsis said "If you vote Hutu, you vote oppression, you vote fascism", would you tell them that they should not fan the political flames?
I hate to risk Godwinning the argument; it doesn't (yet) look like that. And you've already said that you don't want to draw false equivalences. But I think it's worth considering that sometimes the motives are the worst possible motives, and it's not up to the victims to reduce polarization.
This isn't just about "people who don't vote like me". It's about people who are actively voting to oppress me, to make harmless behavior illegal and to diminish my voting power to prevent it. Voting isn't harmless; it's ultimately a matter of compulsion.
That can often be benign. We'll never be unanimous and sometimes minorities on any issue will be compelled. That works when it's not done with malice. But malice is a real thing, and it only takes one side to have it. And it really looks to me as if it's being done out of malice in the US, right now. Maybe not genocidal... but I don't think it's up to the trans people or any other group to avoid inflaming Republicans just by existing.
I hate to risk Godwinning the argument; it doesn't (yet) look like that. And you've already said that you don't want to draw false equivalences. But I think it's worth considering that sometimes the motives are the worst possible motives, and it's not up to the victims to reduce polarization.
This isn't just about "people who don't vote like me". It's about people who are actively voting to oppress me, to make harmless behavior illegal and to diminish my voting power to prevent it. Voting isn't harmless; it's ultimately a matter of compulsion.
That can often be benign. We'll never be unanimous and sometimes minorities on any issue will be compelled. That works when it's not done with malice. But malice is a real thing, and it only takes one side to have it. And it really looks to me as if it's being done out of malice in the US, right now. Maybe not genocidal... but I don't think it's up to the trans people or any other group to avoid inflaming Republicans just by existing.
tombert(1)
The whole discourse over this in the US is getting nuts as of late.
We justifiably get annoyed when uninformed lawmakers make sweeping laws without understanding the technical issues involved. It's frankly bizarre to have some 80 year old fossil who can barely understand using a cell phone be involved in something like deciding net neutrality or AI regulations.
We should be equally annoyed at the current trend of throwing medical issues into the public sphere. There's no reason whatsoever why random people like my mom whose education is in textile design and mostly watches cat videos all day should participate in the public drama of who should get what medical treatment when. We have professionals who specialize in medicine for a reason.
We justifiably get annoyed when uninformed lawmakers make sweeping laws without understanding the technical issues involved. It's frankly bizarre to have some 80 year old fossil who can barely understand using a cell phone be involved in something like deciding net neutrality or AI regulations.
We should be equally annoyed at the current trend of throwing medical issues into the public sphere. There's no reason whatsoever why random people like my mom whose education is in textile design and mostly watches cat videos all day should participate in the public drama of who should get what medical treatment when. We have professionals who specialize in medicine for a reason.
> There's no reason whatsoever why random people...
Having "random people" participate is a cornerstone of democracy. As others have pointed out, it's what separates democracy from elitist technocracy - and, ultimately, oligarchy.
The problem is that another cornerstone is the public's responsibility to educate themselves. Nobody seems to do that any more, including here. This is the foundation that's failing. Fix the broken cornerstone, not the one that's still intact (though under assault in the form of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement).
Having "random people" participate is a cornerstone of democracy. As others have pointed out, it's what separates democracy from elitist technocracy - and, ultimately, oligarchy.
The problem is that another cornerstone is the public's responsibility to educate themselves. Nobody seems to do that any more, including here. This is the foundation that's failing. Fix the broken cornerstone, not the one that's still intact (though under assault in the form of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement).
I think that you are both right on different levels and possibly talking past each other.
Yes, on the level of franchise, it is good that everyone is involved.
Its bad, on the other hand, that the form of the debate in this concrete instance has been directed to trying to make decisions on specific medical procedures as electoral politics issues.
Belief in democratic franchise does not imply belief that all democratic decisions are equally correct, or that all possible framings of debate within a participatory system are equally correct.
Yes, on the level of franchise, it is good that everyone is involved.
Its bad, on the other hand, that the form of the debate in this concrete instance has been directed to trying to make decisions on specific medical procedures as electoral politics issues.
Belief in democratic franchise does not imply belief that all democratic decisions are equally correct, or that all possible framings of debate within a participatory system are equally correct.
I do believe that the details should be left to people who have some understanding (preferably not because they're in the pockets of those their decisions affect). It's why I support the idea of a regulatory state, despite some concerns about non-legislative bodies making rules with the force of law. But that didn't seem to be what my interlocutor was talking about.
> There's no reason whatsoever why random people like my mom
I very much doubt that their mom is a legislator, or on any regulatory agency's board, where these decisions are actually made. They were sneering at the common voter, suggesting there's "no reason whatsoever" for them to participate even at that level. I happen to believe that high barriers to participation for voters or even legislators undermine democracy, and I believe so quite strongly, hence the equally strong response.
> There's no reason whatsoever why random people like my mom
I very much doubt that their mom is a legislator, or on any regulatory agency's board, where these decisions are actually made. They were sneering at the common voter, suggesting there's "no reason whatsoever" for them to participate even at that level. I happen to believe that high barriers to participation for voters or even legislators undermine democracy, and I believe so quite strongly, hence the equally strong response.
Unfortunately on this topic, institutions that could typically have been trusted regarding the details, have largely been captured by ideologists and by the medical industry, the latter of whom are eagerly seeking to create new revenue streams - manufacturing a lifelong patient from childhood onwards does this rather effectively, especially when the 'illness' is iatrogenic and malleable via cultural norms.
On the big policy level, not on the detail level. We specialize for a reason.
It's not in any way reasonable for a random person to make specific decisions about what kind of medical intervention is appropriate for what people in what conditions. Figuring out tricky details is what we have experts for.
Just like 99% of the time, it's not appropriate for the CEO to decide which framework, algorithm or programming language should be used to solve a problem.
Nor can we even try successfully. There's too many deeply complex subjects for the general public to have time to research them well enough not to make completely stupid decisions, let alone good ones.
It's not in any way reasonable for a random person to make specific decisions about what kind of medical intervention is appropriate for what people in what conditions. Figuring out tricky details is what we have experts for.
Just like 99% of the time, it's not appropriate for the CEO to decide which framework, algorithm or programming language should be used to solve a problem.
Nor can we even try successfully. There's too many deeply complex subjects for the general public to have time to research them well enough not to make completely stupid decisions, let alone good ones.
> As others have pointed out, it's what separates democracy from elitist technocracy - and, ultimately, oligarchy.
Having "random people" (or people without specific domain knowledge) in a democracy doesn't really do anything to prevent oligarchy, it's tangential at best and orthogonal realistically.
> The problem is that another cornerstone is the public's responsibility to educate themselves.
That seems like a tall order in a culture that consistently promotes ignorance as a virtue for the wide masses.
Having "random people" (or people without specific domain knowledge) in a democracy doesn't really do anything to prevent oligarchy, it's tangential at best and orthogonal realistically.
> The problem is that another cornerstone is the public's responsibility to educate themselves.
That seems like a tall order in a culture that consistently promotes ignorance as a virtue for the wide masses.
Please don't use "realistically" to privilege your own opinion beyond its merit. My opinion is just as reality-based as yours. Time after time after time, leaders within any elite have accumulated personal power and turned it into an instrument of that power (as opposed to its original purpose). When that elite is ruling society, those leaders therefore are too, and we have a word for that: oligarchs. We probably can't fix the organizational dynamics that lead to this accretion of power, but we can prevent it from being our basis of government by keeping the franchise broad. Limiting franchise has always been a favorite tool of dictators, oligarchs, and supremacists - not of people who actually believe in democracy.
> My opinion is just as reality-based as yours.
Only assuming you can process information from the real world correctly, which isn't a given. Not a judgment on you personally.
> We probably can't fix the organizational dynamics that lead to this accretion of power, but we can prevent it from being our basis of government by keeping the franchise broad.
Is there any evidence that keeping the franchise broad is the most effective strategy of running a country over multiple generations, where knowledge of organizational dynamics gets lost over time? That's a very strong claim, without much supporting it.
> Limiting franchise has always been a favorite tool of dictators, oligarchs, and supremacists - not of people who actually believe in democracy.
I don't particularly believe in democracy (one of the reasons being an extremely broad, misused catch-all term for whatever the speaker means themselves), but I do believe in strong institutions and separation of powers to the degree that it's possible.
But again, that's kind of orthogonal to whether this is an effective way to enact change by the broad franchise.
Only assuming you can process information from the real world correctly, which isn't a given. Not a judgment on you personally.
> We probably can't fix the organizational dynamics that lead to this accretion of power, but we can prevent it from being our basis of government by keeping the franchise broad.
Is there any evidence that keeping the franchise broad is the most effective strategy of running a country over multiple generations, where knowledge of organizational dynamics gets lost over time? That's a very strong claim, without much supporting it.
> Limiting franchise has always been a favorite tool of dictators, oligarchs, and supremacists - not of people who actually believe in democracy.
I don't particularly believe in democracy (one of the reasons being an extremely broad, misused catch-all term for whatever the speaker means themselves), but I do believe in strong institutions and separation of powers to the degree that it's possible.
But again, that's kind of orthogonal to whether this is an effective way to enact change by the broad franchise.
> Only assuming you can process information from the real world correctly, which isn't a given. Not a judgment on you personally.
You realize this claim can be made about you too, right? You might believe you process information correctly, but that's a very strong claim, without much supporting it.
You realize this claim can be made about you too, right? You might believe you process information correctly, but that's a very strong claim, without much supporting it.
I don't need external validation for that claim. My experience in being correct and good outcomes are the support that I need.
The fact that you don't have access to that empiric information is just unfortunate, but ultimately nothing that makes a difference.
The fact that you don't have access to that empiric information is just unfortunate, but ultimately nothing that makes a difference.
.. this is why you're online bragging about how much better you are to other people, right?
I wasn't bragging about anything. Some random guy was trying to drag me down to the level of his poorly thought through opinions.
I simply told him I had no obligation of doing so.
But you keep misinterpreting everything you read for hot takes or whatever.
I simply told him I had no obligation of doing so.
But you keep misinterpreting everything you read for hot takes or whatever.
Shot:
> My experience in being correct and good outcomes are the support that I need.
Chaser:
> antisthenes 1 day ago | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: A rant on bus stops
> Some points in the article are hit and miss, but mostly correct.
> For example, Istanbul is flourishing because it's the Turkish capital, so it necessarily is the most dense and rich city in the country.
> My experience in being correct and good outcomes are the support that I need.
Chaser:
> antisthenes 1 day ago | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: A rant on bus stops
> Some points in the article are hit and miss, but mostly correct.
> For example, Istanbul is flourishing because it's the Turkish capital, so it necessarily is the most dense and rich city in the country.
> Please don't use "realistically" to privilege your own opinion beyond its merit. My opinion is just as reality-based as yours.
Just to make a note about this separately.
I will privilege my opinion in discussions, because I generally tend to give concepts a lot more thought than the average person. It is also my prerogative to defend what I believe in and I try to do that with evidence and astute observation.
To ask someone not to do this is absolutely ridiculous.
Just to make a note about this separately.
I will privilege my opinion in discussions, because I generally tend to give concepts a lot more thought than the average person. It is also my prerogative to defend what I believe in and I try to do that with evidence and astute observation.
To ask someone not to do this is absolutely ridiculous.
There are downsides to technocracy, like doctor groups or AI companies pursuing their self interests a little too much.
And at the federal level, many of the older congressional members are not as uninformed as you might think. They have a big information machine around them.
...But, in general, yeah. Its absurd how uninformed the debates can get these days.
And at the federal level, many of the older congressional members are not as uninformed as you might think. They have a big information machine around them.
...But, in general, yeah. Its absurd how uninformed the debates can get these days.
« I’m on the board overseeing Linux graphics. Half of us are trans »
From a purely statistical POV, this is absurdly bizarre.
From a purely statistical POV, this is absurdly bizarre.
I think there's a few factors going into making this more likely (though still unlikely on the whole)
Much of the difficulty of being trans is social, which makes it more likely for people to come out / actively transition in environments with less social consequences. Programming, as an activity which can be anonymous and online fits that bill simply because there's less socializing at all.
And speaking of social difficulties, most people don't want to be social trailblazers. They don't want to be the first trans person in a group and deal with the potential existing prejudices, or more likely ignorance. So if you see a group that already contains trans people, you're probably seeing a group you can slide into without much difficulty.
Much of the difficulty of being trans is social, which makes it more likely for people to come out / actively transition in environments with less social consequences. Programming, as an activity which can be anonymous and online fits that bill simply because there's less socializing at all.
And speaking of social difficulties, most people don't want to be social trailblazers. They don't want to be the first trans person in a group and deal with the potential existing prejudices, or more likely ignorance. So if you see a group that already contains trans people, you're probably seeing a group you can slide into without much difficulty.
It's not a random pick from the population, or the 95% male ratio in engineering would also be somewhat weird.
They have a small team: https://asahilinux.org/about/
People like to team up with others like them, so the fact that they're more likely to collaborate with other trans people is not weird at all.
They have a small team: https://asahilinux.org/about/
People like to team up with others like them, so the fact that they're more likely to collaborate with other trans people is not weird at all.
I suspect it was actually a reference to https://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/.
> X.Org Foundation's (or X.Org for short) purpose is to research, develop, support, organize, administrate, standardize, promote, and defend a free and open accelerated graphics stack and the developers and users thereof. This stack includes, but is not limited to, the following projects: DRM, Mesa, Wayland and the X Window System.
Pretty neatly describes "I’m on the board overseeing Linux graphics.".
> X.Org Foundation's (or X.Org for short) purpose is to research, develop, support, organize, administrate, standardize, promote, and defend a free and open accelerated graphics stack and the developers and users thereof. This stack includes, but is not limited to, the following projects: DRM, Mesa, Wayland and the X Window System.
Pretty neatly describes "I’m on the board overseeing Linux graphics.".
This seems more likely than the Asahi Linux team, actually.
I don't think she was referring to Asahi there.
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainers.h...
The only graphical subystem she is on the list for is the Panfrost driver. I don't think that counts as "on the board overseeing Linux graphics", not at all. This is one GPU driver. She is on the board overseeing the general graphics for Linux for the Asahi project, so I think that's what she was referring to.
The only graphical subystem she is on the list for is the Panfrost driver. I don't think that counts as "on the board overseeing Linux graphics", not at all. This is one GPU driver. She is on the board overseeing the general graphics for Linux for the Asahi project, so I think that's what she was referring to.
Yeah. Trans men and cis women are like unicorns.
There are more cis women (>50% of the U.S. population) than cis men. Trans women are still like ~1% of the population, and that's being generous.
And there are more trans women than cis women in these spaces.
I don't know what it says (feminism failed? pre-transition heteronormative programming?? bIoLoGy???), but bizarre's the right word. (The smartest programmers I know are trans women too, fwiw.)
There are more cis women (>50% of the U.S. population) than cis men. Trans women are still like ~1% of the population, and that's being generous.
And there are more trans women than cis women in these spaces.
I don't know what it says (feminism failed? pre-transition heteronormative programming?? bIoLoGy???), but bizarre's the right word. (The smartest programmers I know are trans women too, fwiw.)
Not really.
Statistically there will be weird coincidences completely naturally. It's also quite arbitrary which we see as meaningful. If say, Linux networking has unusually many people called "John" that probably will be unnoticed because nobody pays that much attention to common, unremarkable names. If they all randomly turn out to have green eyes, then that's more visible. It's completely subjective which of those is more remarkable.
There are also likely social effects -- people stick together, and some side interests align with some fields. Eg, I think it's reasonable to guess there's going to be more furries than average in VR development. Part because VR allow you to look like whatever you want a lot of the time, part because people will invite their friends in.
Statistically there will be weird coincidences completely naturally. It's also quite arbitrary which we see as meaningful. If say, Linux networking has unusually many people called "John" that probably will be unnoticed because nobody pays that much attention to common, unremarkable names. If they all randomly turn out to have green eyes, then that's more visible. It's completely subjective which of those is more remarkable.
There are also likely social effects -- people stick together, and some side interests align with some fields. Eg, I think it's reasonable to guess there's going to be more furries than average in VR development. Part because VR allow you to look like whatever you want a lot of the time, part because people will invite their friends in.
It is not just a random coincidence. It's a phenomenon more broadly across programming, especially very low-level/hardware stuff.
There does seem to be a correlation between autism spectrum and gender confusion, with the former often present in individuals who are into highly technical pursuits.
The logic seems to be not conforming to masculine stereotypes ==> must be a woman.
The logic seems to be not conforming to masculine stereotypes ==> must be a woman.
It's not "gender confusion". They know very well who they are. You are confused about the topic.
I think the right has seized on trans people because it's become socially unacceptable to go after gay people (at least directly), so going after trans people is a substitute. "Othering" some group and uniting people against them is powerful brain stem stuff, and elections these days are won or lost on turnout rather than changing anyone's mind.
I'm not sure what they're going to do when there aren't any groups left to "other." They might have to argue for their ideas and policies on reason and merit. That's gonna be hard. It's a lot harder to convince the neocortex with reason than to rally the limbic system with outrage porn.
It's gross of course. It's using people for political cannon fodder. At least the left mostly just tries to scare me and make me hate right-wing politicians, which is like striking a military target rather than a civilian target.
I hate the culture war in general. It's a godsend to incompetent politicians. All they have to do is grunt correctly on culture war issues and they don't have to actually deliver anything of substance or solve any real problems.
I'm not sure what they're going to do when there aren't any groups left to "other." They might have to argue for their ideas and policies on reason and merit. That's gonna be hard. It's a lot harder to convince the neocortex with reason than to rally the limbic system with outrage porn.
It's gross of course. It's using people for political cannon fodder. At least the left mostly just tries to scare me and make me hate right-wing politicians, which is like striking a military target rather than a civilian target.
I hate the culture war in general. It's a godsend to incompetent politicians. All they have to do is grunt correctly on culture war issues and they don't have to actually deliver anything of substance or solve any real problems.
I don't know; it seems like DeSantis and his ilk are pretty happy to just directly go after gay people under the guise of calling them "groomers". I mentioned this here a few weeks ago, but part of the reason that my wife and I have dismissed the idea of moving to Florida (despite us both having family there) is because she's planning on becoming a biology teacher, and the broad and idiotic "don't say gay" law in Florida is likely to make our lives extremely unpleasant if she taught there.
What specifically in the "don't say gay" law are you against?
The fact that it allows basically any parent to sue to the teacher for mentioning basically anything involving sexual orientation, the fact that it doesn't really define what is disallowed, the fact that it was extended all the way until twelfth grade, the fact that there's little repercussions for a parent lying or embellishing.
ETA:
Oh, also, because it's basically predicated on a homophobic conspiracy about gay people all being out to groom your children.
ETA:
Oh, also, because it's basically predicated on a homophobic conspiracy about gay people all being out to groom your children.
I'm just looking at the bill [1]. It seems like a very straight forward reinforcement of a parents rights to oversee the education of their kids.
> any parent to sue to the teacher for mentioning basically anything involving sexual orientation
"prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner. ..... to adhere to standards developed by the department of education."
Presumably they can only sue if the teacher is going against whatever the normal standards are.
> little repercussions for a parent lying or embellishing
I don't know what you mean here, but presumably if the parents take a teacher to court and lose (because they lied/embellished) they would have just wasted their legal fees.
> homophobic conspiracy about gay people all being out to groom your children
Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/559840370/House-Bill-1557-Do...
> any parent to sue to the teacher for mentioning basically anything involving sexual orientation
"prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner. ..... to adhere to standards developed by the department of education."
Presumably they can only sue if the teacher is going against whatever the normal standards are.
> little repercussions for a parent lying or embellishing
I don't know what you mean here, but presumably if the parents take a teacher to court and lose (because they lied/embellished) they would have just wasted their legal fees.
> homophobic conspiracy about gay people all being out to groom your children
Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/559840370/House-Bill-1557-Do...
> "prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner. ..... to adhere to standards developed by the department of education."
I'm not 100% sure what that means though. What if a kid draws a picture of his two dads or two moms; does the teacher just not allow him to present to the class because that might lead to a discussion of sexuality? It's not clear, and as a result it will probably lead to "othering" of gay parents.
> I don't know what you mean here, but presumably if the parents take a teacher to court and lose (because they lied/embellished) they would have just wasted their legal fees.
Yes, but then (I believe) it's up to the school to actively countersue to retrieve legal fees for a frivolous lawsuit. Again, it's not really clear.
> Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
Simply not true: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215...
I'm not 100% sure what that means though. What if a kid draws a picture of his two dads or two moms; does the teacher just not allow him to present to the class because that might lead to a discussion of sexuality? It's not clear, and as a result it will probably lead to "othering" of gay parents.
> I don't know what you mean here, but presumably if the parents take a teacher to court and lose (because they lied/embellished) they would have just wasted their legal fees.
Yes, but then (I believe) it's up to the school to actively countersue to retrieve legal fees for a frivolous lawsuit. Again, it's not really clear.
> Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
Simply not true: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215...
So I guess the main issue is that it is not specific enough and is open to interpretation. I don't know enough about how laws are written to know if this standard or not.
> Simply not true: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215...
This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse (which i don't agree with) that the only reason people would object to this is because they must be groomers. Seems like it was the law first and then this "groomer" thing.
I appreciate you explaining your criticism to me.
> Simply not true: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215...
This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse (which i don't agree with) that the only reason people would object to this is because they must be groomers. Seems like it was the law first and then this "groomer" thing.
I appreciate you explaining your criticism to me.
> So I guess the main issue is that it is not specific enough and is open to interpretation.
It's open to interpretation, but in some cases it's actually more bluntly horrible. For example, it seems like conservatives are clutching their pearls about the possibility of a math problem mentioning two moms [1].
From the article:
> The legislation could also impact how teachers provide instruction on a day-to-day basis. At a Senate hearing on Feb. 8, Republican Sen. Travis Hutson gave the example of a math problem that includes the details that “Sally has two moms or Johnny has two dads.” Republican State Sen. Dennis Baxley, who sponsors the bill in the Senate, said that is “exactly” what the bill aims to prevent.
This seems to imply that my fears of othering of gay families is founded.
> This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse
I feel like the LGBT grooming conspiracies have been around for a long time. There are 50's era PSAs about how gays will show your kids porn and then try and molest them [2]. I don't think these sentiments ever really went away, at least not completely.
In more recent history I don't know if the "gays are trying to groom your kids" came before or after the bill.
[1] https://time.com/6155905/florida-dont-say-gay-passed/
[2] https://youtu.be/3bPZxRD1GJQ
EDIT:
I think I linked the wrong video. https://youtu.be/EqIIeGmhL2Q
It's open to interpretation, but in some cases it's actually more bluntly horrible. For example, it seems like conservatives are clutching their pearls about the possibility of a math problem mentioning two moms [1].
From the article:
> The legislation could also impact how teachers provide instruction on a day-to-day basis. At a Senate hearing on Feb. 8, Republican Sen. Travis Hutson gave the example of a math problem that includes the details that “Sally has two moms or Johnny has two dads.” Republican State Sen. Dennis Baxley, who sponsors the bill in the Senate, said that is “exactly” what the bill aims to prevent.
This seems to imply that my fears of othering of gay families is founded.
> This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse
I feel like the LGBT grooming conspiracies have been around for a long time. There are 50's era PSAs about how gays will show your kids porn and then try and molest them [2]. I don't think these sentiments ever really went away, at least not completely.
In more recent history I don't know if the "gays are trying to groom your kids" came before or after the bill.
[1] https://time.com/6155905/florida-dont-say-gay-passed/
[2] https://youtu.be/3bPZxRD1GJQ
EDIT:
I think I linked the wrong video. https://youtu.be/EqIIeGmhL2Q
> Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
Consider how much work you're doing to ignore the right's own self-proclaimed objectives and orientation in service of false lofty neutrality. Here is a tweet[1] from Desantis's press secretary on 2022-03-04:
> The bill that liberals inaccurately call “Don’t Say Gay” would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill.
The bill was first filed on 2022-01-11 and signed on 2022-03-28.[2]
> It seems like a very straight forward reinforcement of a parents rights to oversee the education of their kids.
These bills are written precisely to allow people like you to draw this conclusion.
[1]: https://twitter.com/christinapushaw/status/14998866192597770...
[2]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557
Consider how much work you're doing to ignore the right's own self-proclaimed objectives and orientation in service of false lofty neutrality. Here is a tweet[1] from Desantis's press secretary on 2022-03-04:
> The bill that liberals inaccurately call “Don’t Say Gay” would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill.
The bill was first filed on 2022-01-11 and signed on 2022-03-28.[2]
> It seems like a very straight forward reinforcement of a parents rights to oversee the education of their kids.
These bills are written precisely to allow people like you to draw this conclusion.
[1]: https://twitter.com/christinapushaw/status/14998866192597770...
[2]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557
> I'm not sure what they're going to do when there aren't any groups left to "other."
Sadly, this will never happen. We've been at this for tens of thousands of years, and we always find "others."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANNX_XiuA78
Sadly, this will never happen. We've been at this for tens of thousands of years, and we always find "others."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANNX_XiuA78
> I'm not sure what they're going to do when there aren't any groups left to "other."
There's always going to be an "other". If necessary, some arbitrary social divide will be invented. Most of the "groups" we've split ourselves into are not particularly meaningful to begin with, and it doesn't take much to become an outsider when people really want there to be outsiders.
There's always going to be an "other". If necessary, some arbitrary social divide will be invented. Most of the "groups" we've split ourselves into are not particularly meaningful to begin with, and it doesn't take much to become an outsider when people really want there to be outsiders.
[deleted]
john004(1)
The most vociferous "anti-trans" people tend to be left-leaning feminists, in my experience.
The article is clearly about political and legislative anti-trans machinations though, not TERFs at dinner parties or whatever. In that context it’s the right that is the issue.
The organized TERF movement and the far-right trans eliminationist movement are one and the same.
For example, the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF), which brands itself as a left-wing group, has been working with the people pushing bills: https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1634287701896712207...
For example, the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF), which brands itself as a left-wing group, has been working with the people pushing bills: https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1634287701896712207...
And your comment might even be relevant if “left-leaning feminists” were a non-fringe political power threatening to take over legislative, executive, and judicial branches of power. We have real problems to deal with, not some imaginary “bad feminism”.
Feminism advocating for women as a sex caste fighting for their rights in a male-dominated world is the only type of feminism that makes any sense. Everything else is, to varying extents, pandering to male wants and desires.
[deleted]
c'mon HN, don't flag this. it's a perspective piece about being a trans developer in a harsh political landscape. we upvote and discuss this stuff quite often.
It's someones political manifesto. Not sure why it's relevant to HN.
@dang why is this flagged? It was a pretty good discussion of issues surrounding the trans community.
>I fear the 2024 election
You and me both :(
With you being young and hopefully on social media, I hope you can help turn out the youth vote. I hate to say this, most people of my generation are about as close minded as a person can get, and sadly they turn out to vote in large numbers. And many of them vote only for hate.
I think the future of the US rests on your generation shoulders, and I hope your generation is stronger than mine is/was.
You and me both :(
With you being young and hopefully on social media, I hope you can help turn out the youth vote. I hate to say this, most people of my generation are about as close minded as a person can get, and sadly they turn out to vote in large numbers. And many of them vote only for hate.
I think the future of the US rests on your generation shoulders, and I hope your generation is stronger than mine is/was.
Right wing political parties in the world are taking a crusade against LGBT rights. In brazil the situation is ridiculous: a parliamentarian used the tribune in the International Womens' Day to attack trans women[1].
A significant part of the population is against against trans rights basing their arguments on religion and "morality". There are great efforts to ban even talking about it in schools.
brazil is the country with highest number of trans people killings in the world[2] and homophobia is the rule rather than the exception.
There's is a reason why most women and LGBT people in brazil vote for left-wing politicians.
[1] https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censor...
[2] https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2022/01/23/brazil-continues-...
A significant part of the population is against against trans rights basing their arguments on religion and "morality". There are great efforts to ban even talking about it in schools.
brazil is the country with highest number of trans people killings in the world[2] and homophobia is the rule rather than the exception.
There's is a reason why most women and LGBT people in brazil vote for left-wing politicians.
[1] https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censor...
[2] https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2022/01/23/brazil-continues-...
> brazil is the country with highest number of trans people killings in the world[2] and homophobia is the rule rather than the exception.
Not surprising when Brazil is a very dangerous country with a very high number of killings, period. It just naturally follows that the number of gay/trans people killings is also very high.
I mean, we can probably concoct some statistics to prove that Brazil is also one of the countries that kill more cis/hetero people too.
None of this to say that the right wing in Brazil is okay. They engage in this cultural war nonsense to try to stay relevant after Bolsonaro ridiculously lost the last elections even after all things he did to try and steal it.
Not surprising when Brazil is a very dangerous country with a very high number of killings, period. It just naturally follows that the number of gay/trans people killings is also very high.
I mean, we can probably concoct some statistics to prove that Brazil is also one of the countries that kill more cis/hetero people too.
None of this to say that the right wing in Brazil is okay. They engage in this cultural war nonsense to try to stay relevant after Bolsonaro ridiculously lost the last elections even after all things he did to try and steal it.
aerodog(1)
BSEdlMMldESB(1)
As a registered independent who finds both major parties unconscionable, this line of argument worries me. Frankly, members of both parties can ascribe the worst possible motives to those who vote for the opposition, precisely because both parties are a massive tangle of complex social, economic, political, and administrative issues, not necessarily all consistent with each other, and very often only invoked when it's politically convenient.
I'm not trying to engage in false equivalence here, because it is absolutely possible for one party to be worse than the other. But what I'm saying is that ascribing the worst possible motives to those who don't vote like you is only going to inflame our already polarized political discourse, and my great fear is that if the flames are fanned enough, we're going to end up how Rwanda ended up when the hatred between the Hutus and Tutsis boiled over.