Brave New World

[alimori]

cateodata imi vine sa ma banez singura noroc ca nu pot

[primarita]

@primarita- pana la ce varsta le dai tu voie femeilor sa aiba copii?

Din punctul meu de vedere, femeile trebuie sa isi asume un copil si ca trebuie sa ii ofere sanse de reusita in viata.
Daca esti de varsta lui Alimori si nu ai un partener stabil sau macar unul mai tanar, mai bine nu.

si care e varsta lui alimori? si a partenerului lui alimori? alimori inca ovuleaza si inca se fte. si isi ia masuri de protectie pt ca nu vrea copii.
tu esti fix pe dos, tinerica (ovarian si foarte tinerica spre infantila mental), nu te fti, vrei copii, dar singura optiune e banca de sperma. noroc ca te fte grija din cand in cand.

Credeam ca ai 50 de ani. Iarta-ma, nu stiam ca ovulezi si ca te protejezi, e bine de stiut ca nu voi deveni mama in curand ).
La batranete omul face sex, la tinerete mai poate si altceva.

[alimori]

la 39 de ani am emigrat, a trecut ceva timp, nu-mi amintesc exact cati ani, d-aia te intrebam.

[M_Dan]

An de an e 1984.

Pana la urma lumea va reactiona (instintul de conservare) si ii va beli pe toti astia care au fabricat si promovat aceste ideologii aberante.

[jomil]

Mneatale ai sarit peste1989?
1984 e la tine acasa every day...(

[MumaPadurii]

Iata ca am gasit si un exemplu pe placul primaritei, o doamna care si-a luat foarte literal responsibilitatea de a participa la cresterea nepotilor:

mom.jpg

https://www.peroz.ro/actualitate/o-buni ... nune-34808

Asta sau sotul a luat foarte literal anumite videoclipuri recreationale.

[primarita]

E o solutie daca poate mama sa te ajute.
Mi se pare un gest f frumos.
Poate ar trebui sa fiu mai deschisa la minte si cand e vorba de persoanele gay.

[MumaPadurii]

Nu orice e mai convenabil e neaparat mai bine.
E un gest frumos din partea mamei, dar mi se pare cam cringy situatia pentru cuplu. Eu as fi ales alta mama surogat, una necunoscuta.
Si nu doar din cauza riscului unei sarcini la 52 de ani.

Ma intreb daca doamna ar fi acceptat-o pe mama lui sa le poarte copilul, in caz ca maica-sa n-ar fi putut. Si cum ar fi aratat poza cu doamna soacra insarcinata tindanu-se de mana cu fiul, iar fiica un pic mai in spate.

[primarita]

Probabil au fost disperati, probabil o mama surogat era o solutie mai buna, dar costa mai mult si pot surveni probleme legale.

[jomil]

Ma intreb daca doamna ar fi acceptat-o pe mama lui sa le poarte copilul, in caz ca maica-sa n-ar fi putut. Si cum ar fi aratat poza cu doamna soacra insarcinata tindanu-se de mana cu fiul, iar fiica un pic mai in spate.

La fel ca si Primi esti orbita de SEX.
Nu vad problema. Sa zicem ca faci cozonaci cu sotul. Puneti impreuna ingrediente, framantati etc. Apoi realizati ca nu va functioneaza cuptorul. Conteaza daca mergti la mama ta sau a lui ca sa folositi cuptorul?!

[M_Dan]

Oligarhii tin mortis sa introduca neofeudalismul (comunismul corporatist), ei fiind feudalii si restul populatiei o masa amorfa, fara drepturi si proprietati. De asta au provocat epidemia cu Covid-19, un virus modificat in laborator. Au creat dezordine mondiala ca sa inceapa aplicarea planului lor.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507336-great-r ... mic-forum/

[dustweaver]

Pentru generatiile ce vor sa vina si care intreba-se-vor, poate, ce este acela un RT punct com: "RT is an autonomous, non-profit organization that is publicly financed from the budget of the Russian Federation."

Mie mi-a ajuns propaganda din anii '50 pe care am citit-o, dar comentariul anterior s-ar putea sintetiza cam asa: comunismul corporatist câh, comunismul sovietic (la nevoie, merge si ceva mai soft, numai de rit rasaritean sa fie).

[MumaPadurii]

De la sectiunea Barfa Zilei de pe CNN:

Sia si-a luat-o de la niste activiste pentru ca a a distribuit-o pe Maddie Ziegler (tipa care apare in toate videoclipurile ei) in filmul Music, in rolul unei tinere cu autism.
Problema fiind ca Maddie nu e disabled, deci alegerea e offensive si misrepresentative, iar Sia face bani pe seama comunitatii autiste...

La fel au criticat-o si pe Amy Schumer care s-a autodistribuit in filmul pe care l-a produs, despre o tipa care nu arata bine, cu acuzatia ca... ea nu e suficient de grasa si nu e reprezentativa pentru femeile neatragatoare.

Mi se pare corect, distribuim obligatoriu un autist in rol de autist, o femeie cu adevarat neatragatoare (nu doar un pic) in rolul de "ratusca cea urata", gay in rolurile de gay, actori deprimati sau alcoolici (sunt o multime) in dramele despre asta, actrite cu cancer de san in filme despre femei cu cancer de san (chiar Tom Hanks o fi avut HIV?) si asa mai departe.
Problema o sa fie cand vor incerca sa distibuie pe cineva in rolul unui barbat abuziv sau misogin, atunci sa-i vad pe producatori unde o sa gaseasca un actor cu masculinitate toxica in tot Hollywoodul.

[alimori]

asa in principiu actorii sunt actori, interpreteaza personaje, nu vorbesc despre ei insisi.
dar in Grecia antica nu existau actrite, doar actori si in ziua de azi nu ni se pare ok. si ni se pare de cacao si un actor alb vopsit ca sa faca pe negrul.

[primarita]

Actritele au aparut mai tarziu, cred ca prin secolul 17.
Deci false probleme.

Ca tot vrem sa facem o lume buna, zicea un sociolog Gelu Dumitru, ca oamenii strang fonduri pt caini, pt cladiri, dar pt saraci nu. Ma intreb de ce nu o fac.

[alimori]

ca n-ai habar tu (si nici Gelu Dumitru) nu inseamna ca nu se strang fonduri pt saraci.

[primarita]

La cati saraci sunt in Romania si in Spania, nu prea se strang.
Un alt criteriu dupa care iti dai seama de altruismul uman, e rata de analfabetism.

[MumaPadurii]

in Grecia antica nu existau actrite, doar actori si in ziua de azi nu ni se pare ok

Ai inteles invers ce si cand nu era ok. Atunci nu era ok sa joace femeile, nu ca nu e ok acum sa joace barbatii in locul lor. Ci doar inutil, pentru ca ai o alternativa mai buna.
Ce nu e ok e sa interzici femeilor sa joace, nu sa distribui un barbat in rol de femeie, daca asa doresti ca producator.

ni se pare de cacao si un actor alb vopsit ca sa faca pe negrul

Poate tie, mie mi-a placut de RDJ in Tropic Thunder.

[alimori]

eh daca ti-a placut un actor intr-un film, atunci nu ni se pare de cacao ca un alb sa joace un negru in general.

[MumaPadurii]

N-am zis ca un exemplu demonstreaza o afirmatie generala, era doar un exemplu. Afirmatia ca nu mi se pare de cacao n-am cum s-o demonstrez, cum ai vrea sa demonstrez ce mi se pare mie de cacao si ce nu?
Uite alt exemplu: nu m-a deranjat Yul Brynner in The King and I.
Asta a decis producatorul, asta i s-a parut cea mai buna optiune pentru actul artistic in momentul respectiv, de ce sa mi se para de cacao?

Am citit recent un exemplu de critica din aceeasi gama, cu o actrita faimoasa de la Bollywood care a fost atacata ca si-a inchis pielea la culoare ca sa joace rolul unei fete sarace. Problema fiind ca nu alesesera o fata cu pigmentatia mai inchisa pentru film.

Exemplul adus de tine, cu albii care ar face pe negri, nu e foarte fericit pentru discutie, pentru ca acolo problema vine de la faptul ca e vorba de niste trasaturi faciale greu de reprodus prin metode conventionale si rezultatul n-ar fi optim. Ar fi stupid si pana la urma inutil in majoritatea cazurilor. De-aia nici nu se intampla, pentru ca nu-i necesar si e contraproductiv.

Dar e vorba de optimizare si de practicalitate, nu ca mi s-ar parea "de cacao" in sensul de offending si misrepresenting (ca despre asta era discutia). In general nu vad de ce actorii nu s-ar putea ajuta de machiaj, lentile de contact, proteze si alte artificii ca sa intre mai bine in rol, atata timp cat e dorinta producatorului sa distribuie un anumit actor si nu altul.

Cu atat mai mult nu inteleg de ce un actor n-ar putea juca un rol de gay sau de autist fara sa apartina acestor categori.

[Melania]

Actritele au aparut mai tarziu, cred ca prin secolul 17.
Deci false probleme.

Ca tot vrem sa facem o lume buna, zicea un sociolog Gelu Dumitru, ca oamenii strang fonduri pt caini, pt cladiri, dar pt saraci nu. Ma intreb de ce nu o fac.

Gelu Duminica. E tzigan.

[primarita]

Da, asa se numeste. Mersi.

[pc7]

https://www.bizbrasov.ro/2020/10/01/sim ... 50-000-de/

Un exemplu recent pt primarita, se strang bani si pt saraci, in ex pt copii

[alimori]

Dar e vorba de optimizare si de practicalitate, nu ca mi s-ar parea "de cacao" in sensul de offending si misrepresenting (ca despre asta era discutia). In general nu vad de ce actorii nu s-ar putea ajuta de machiaj, lentile de contact, proteze si alte artificii ca sa intre mai bine in rol, atata timp cat e dorinta producatorului sa distribuie un anumit actor si nu altul.

Cu atat mai mult nu inteleg de ce un actor n-ar putea juca un rol de gay sau de autist fara sa apartina acestor categori.

Bineinteles ca actorii pot sa joace ce vor, sa se machieze, sa para mai tineri, mai batrani, nu despre asta e vorba; ci despre faptul ca ar trebui ca actoria sa fie accesibila si altora. Cu paralela cu barbatii care faceau roluri de femei voiam sa spun ca s-ar putea sa vina o vreme in care sa nu ni se para normal ca un actor valid sa joace in rolul unui paraplegic, existand actori paraplegici; sau negri; sau autisti.

[MumaPadurii]

Îți dai seama și tu ca e comparație complet aiurea, nu?

[primarita]

https://www.bizbrasov.ro/2020/10/01/simona-halep-sare-in-ajutorul-edubuzz-proiectul-prin-care-copiii-din-augustin-vor-avea-un-afterschool-intr-un-autobuz-vechi-al-ratbv-si-a-donat-ziua-de-nastere-si-a-strans-pana-acum-aproape-50-000-de/

Un exemplu recent pt primarita, se strang bani si pt saraci, in ex pt copii

E bine. Ma bucur tare mult.

[MumaPadurii]

Am ajuns sa traim intr-o lume foarte trista.
Toata simpatia mea se duce inspre acest biet om care a fost ars pentru mesajele postate pe un forum...

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/12/us/n ... index.html

Inteleg sa banezi userul daca e offensive, dar sa te duci dupa om in real life?! Identitatea cuiva e sacra, cum pot sa faca asa ceva?
Ma gandesc cum ar putea fi scoase din context sau interpretate tendentios unele dintre mesajele postate de mine. Si chiar si cele in care vorbeam serios... poate vreau sa injur politicieni, care-i problema? Sau sa-mi injur seful sau colegul de munca, nu mi se pare normal sa mi se dezvaluie identitatea si sa fie o ancheta administrativa la serviciu pentru ce am spus...

Ar fi putut fi oricare dintre noi. Toti am injurat la un moment dat cate un politician, toti am spus lucruri are ar putea fi interpretabile ca rasiste sau offensive fata de o anumita categorie de oameni, toti am mai balacarit cate un coleg, un sef sau pe altcineva din RL la un moment dat.

Da, sa existe repercusiuni profesionale daca ar fi postat mizerii in numele lui, pentru ca reprezinta institutia unde lucreaza, dar atata timp cat omul scria sub protectia anominmatului, e nedrept sa-l pedepsesti pentru niste pareri.
Poti sa banezi userul sau poti sa interzici postarea sub anonimat in general (date personale cerute la inregistrarea contului, de exemplu).
Dar nu sa permiti postarile anonime pe un forum, astfel incat omul sa se creada protejat, apoi sa faci o mizerie ca asta. Nu mai exista nimic sfant in lume.

[dustweaver]

Nu stiu ce sa zic, cam nasol. S-a gasit taman pe "on a public law enforcement message board", adica oameni cu arme si autoritate, plus ca era sefulet pe la "the police department's Office of Equal Employment and Opportunity, which is responsible for investigating employment and harassment claims." Mai sunt situatii in care te duci dupa un anonim pe un forum, dar alea tind sa fie in the dark web.

[TaylorRyland]

frumos de lucru

[Melania]

Nu poti fi si bio si sa lupti impotriva incalzirii globale in acelasi timp.
Aditivi anti-partz vor fi administrate in hrana vacilor europene, asa zice o recenta directiva UE, ca sa scada productia de metan a paricopitatelor. UE da bani fermierilor ca sa nu se vese baca.
Dar daca salvam planeta, nu mancam carne de vaca cu aditivi? Mai suntem bio?
Legi din astea au disperat pe englezi de si-au luat lumea in cap.

https://www.g4media.ro/fermierii-pot-ob ... stora.html

[andy gavrilescu]

Waka e neatenta? Saraca

[MumaPadurii]

Dar daca salvam planeta, nu mancam carne de neatenta cu aditivi? Mai suntem bio?

Bineinteles ca da, le vor da aditivi bio, naturali.
Probabil o argila care adsoarbe gazele si toxinele. Ce poate fi mai bio decat ingerul pamantului?
In afara de efectele benefice pentru mediu, un beneficiu o sa fie ca vom manca si vaci ecologice, detoxificate si, la ce panaceu natural e argila, probabil mai fericite si mai sanatoase ca noi.

[Melania]

Dar daca salvam planeta, nu mancam carne de neatenta cu aditivi? Mai suntem bio?

Bineinteles ca da, le vor da aditivi bio, naturali.
Probabil o argila care adsoarbe gazele si toxinele. Ce poate fi mai bio decat ingerul pamantului?
In afara de efectele benefice pentru mediu, un beneficiu o sa fie ca vom manca si vaci ecologice, detoxificate si, la ce panaceu natural e argila, probabil mai fericite si mai sanatoase ca noi.

Interesant articol; acolo se explica faptul ca Romania e un cos de gunoi al occidentului in privinta alimentelor si ca din cauza asta romanii fac cancer.
MDan, tu ce parere ai? Asa, din punct de vedere geopolitic si medical?

[MumaPadurii]

Biden appoints Dr. Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of health, a historic first for transgender people:

https://19thnews.org/2021/01/biden-appo ... ugZMrLYIz0

For the first time in history, a transgender person will go before the Senate to be confirmed for a presidential appointment.
[...]
"Dr. Rachel Levine will bring the steady leadership and essential expertise we need to get people through this pandemic — no matter their zip code, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability — and meet the public health needs of our country in this critical moment and beyond,” Biden said in a statement. “She is a historic and deeply qualified choice to help lead our administration’s health efforts.

Daca sunt singura care am citit "histrionic" in loc de "historic" atat in titlu, cat si in articol, unde ma sfatuiti sa ma duc, la oftalmolog sau la cursuri de reeducare?

[Melania]

Interesanta mi se pare ideea australienilor:
https://www.g4media.ro/google-ameninta- ... robat.html
De fapt, cine ‘produce’ postari pe FB ar trebui platit. YouTube plateste pt numarul de abonati si vizionari; cat a avut de castigat in popularitate si bani Twitter de pe urma lui Trump?
De asta nu I-au inchis contul mai devreme, pt ca era good for business.

[dustweaver]

Mi se par din ce in ce mai cool australienii. Chiar asa, "content"-ul ala al FB e pe banii babachii.

Tot ceva cu net: https://teslanorth.com/2021/01/20/starl ... -eligible/

[MumaPadurii]

Cica autoare articolului e o TERF-a

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/war- ... LfGUOryaCw

A fortnight before President Biden took office, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that “mother”, “father”, “daughter”, “brother” and other gendered words to describe familial relationships would be removed from House rules. Henceforth in official documents they would be replaced by the gender-neutral terms “parent”, “child” or “sibling”. The purpose of this was to “honour all gender identities”.

Then, within hours of his inauguration, the president’s first executive order decreed that his administration would fully apply the Supreme Court’s Bostock ruling that denying rights “‘because of ... sex’ covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity” too. That this finally gives American trans people the same protections long enjoyed in Britain, for example from workplace discrimination, reversing President Trump’s disgraceful ban on trans military personnel, should be celebrated.

But this order has far wider consequences. In a stroke of the pen, with zero debate or legislative scrutiny, biological sex as a discrete political and legal concept has gone. US women’s prisons, publicly funded domestic violence refuges and college sporting contests can no longer deny entry to any male-born person who identifies as a woman.

Words matter. When words are removed, when their definitions are changed or conflated, concepts vanish. In George Orwell’s 1984 the Ministry of Truth wipes words from the state’s lexicon because “a heretical thought … should be literally unthinkable at least so far as thought is dependent upon words”. A raging debate over the definitions of “gender” and “sex” may sound dry, pedantic, obsessive or arcane. Yet in this war of words rests the very future of women’s rights.

Last month the Scottish parliament held an emotional debate over a six-word amendment to the Forensic Medical Services Bill. The draft legislation stated that a rape victim should be allowed to choose the “gender” of the medic performing their intimate, post-assault examination. When feminist MSPs argued that this was ambiguous and the word required here was “sex”, the Scottish government argued that since “sex” and “gender” are now used so interchangeably this didn’t matter.

In fact “sex” (whether someone is biologically male or female), unlike “gender” (here meaning an internal sense of self), is a protected characteristic under UK equality law and single-sex services are permitted as “a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim” which should surely include protecting rape victims from further distress. “If members do not agree that women survivors of violence and rape should be able to ask for a woman examiner,” said Labour MSP Johann Lamont, “they should say so, and we can have that debate.” At this Nicola Sturgeon demurred and “for the word gender substitute sex” was added to the bill.

That these two words are constantly conflated is not an accidental linguistic slippage but part of a deliberate decades-long push by trans rights groups to erase biological sex from language and law. This gathered pace in 2007 when international human rights experts convening in Indonesia issued a document called the Yogyakarta Principles.

Along with vital human rights protections for gay men and lesbians, it asserted there was no difference between “gender identity” and sex. This theory has trickled down via bodies like Amnesty or the United Nations into government departments, then with deliberate stealth — to avoid scrutiny of its myriad implications — into the legal framework of nations such as Canada, Malta and Ireland.

If sex and gender identity are the same, a male person does not just have the human right to live as a woman free from violence and discrimination, or be granted social and legal recognition as a woman. (Which most feminists wholeheartedly support.) What is now claimed is that such a male is biologically female. From this bizarre science-denial stem many absurdities: a penis is not necessarily a male organ, therefore a teenage male who identifies as a girl cannot be denied entry to female showers because, regardless of physical appearance, they are also “female”.

The problem for the world’s women is that biological sex is not some abstract idea or inner feeling. From menstruation to menopause, pregnancy to birth, abortion to rape, it is a vivid reality. That women’s oppression is “on the basis of sex” is why generations of feminists sought legislation for sex-based rights such as maternity leave and single-sex spaces such as rape crisis centres. In India, activists demand toilets for girls who are sexually assaulted while defecating in fields. Child brides in Afghanistan or female genital mutilation (FGM) victims in Somalia do not suffer because of a nebulous inner identity but the immutable sex of their bodies.

Yet now the concept of womanhood has been untethered from biology under gender-neutral edicts — as espoused by Pelosi — we are increasingly forbidden to describe the reality of our own lives. The very brands, charities or support groups created for women are tongue-tied. Tampon manufacturers now call customers “menstruators” or “bleeders”. Female cancer charities speak of “everyone with a cervix” even if such obscure usage might reduce already low take-up for lifesaving smears. The breastfeeding group La Leche League tweeted its support for “all human milk feeding families”. An NHS sexual health clinic writes of “people with vaginas”.

Most problematic of all, it seems, is the word “mother”. To delete it from usage, as under House rules, is not merely to erase a unique bond and specific female experience which “parent” comes nowhere near to describing, but how then can you address maternal health or maternal mortality? Yet a male NHS gynaecologist tweets about “labouring people”, as if he means toilers on building sites. A female health charity speaks of “black birthing bodies”, a term for BAME women so dehumanising it evokes the word “breeders” used of fertile female slaves. Even Sands, which supports those bereaved by stillbirth and neonatal death, referred to “birthing parents”: on top of losing a baby, women were denied even motherhood itself.

This “inclusive language” is necessary, we are told, because it includes trans men. No matter that it erases the beloved, even sacred words of 99 per cent of those to whom it applies. Even a compromise, perhaps referring to “women and trans men” rather than the insulting “menstruators” is usually rejected. Because in this context “women” does not include trans women, who do not have periods and are the chief driver of this linguistic erasure.

Before the first Women’s March, which sprang from fears that President Trump would destroy US abortion rights, trans activist Munroe Bergdorf tweeted that to “centre reproductive systems” at the demonstration was “reductive and exclusionary”. Even feminism should not focus on female concerns.

This also explains why men’s charities and health bodies are under no equivalent pressure to refer to “testicle-havers” or “ejaculators”. Trans women have, understandably, no wish to be reminded of their male biology. So a recent Prostate Cancer UK billboard read: “Black man over 45? You have an increased risk of prostate cancer”, ending with the reassurance “Men, we are with you.” The first six paragraphs of NHS guidance on prostate screening uses “men/man” nine times; the first nine paragraphs on cervical screening uses “women” once with a caveat about trans men. Men are still men: women are now merely persons.

Terminology which erases women’s material reality is not only degrading but impairs our ability to protect existing rights. “A woman’s right to choose,” was a powerful 1970s slogan in the battle for legal abortion. Yet in October when Polish women marched against their government’s virtual banning of abortion, Amnesty International produced a baffling poster saying: “I stand with people in Poland.” But which people? The right-wing populist politicians? The Catholic clerics? Hog-tied by biological denial, Amnesty could not bring itself to utter the name of those who risk bleeding to death in the backstreet clinics of Gdansk: women. Moreover if reproductive rights are no longer women’s rights but “people’s rights”, “a woman’s right to choose” dissolves. It follows that “people” should determine the outcome of a pregnancy, including men.

Even campaigners against FGM are now accused of transphobia because under gender-neutral ideology the clitoris, which is sliced off little girls, cannot be categorised as an exclusively female organ. As the anti FGM-campaigner Nimco Ali tells me, “the idea womanhood doesn’t exist impacts the most vulnerable women in the world, and these happen to be women of colour”. Or as JK Rowling put it in a tweet which began her vilification across the globe: “If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased.”

Bleeder, labourer, ovary-haver, birthing parent … is the entity which performs these disparate functions even fully human? Already the globally expanding commercial surrogacy industry strives to erase the inconvenient existence of a sentient woman in the lucrative business of commodifying wombs to make babies. Instead of “pregnancy” its advocates speak of a “surrogacy journey”; “birth mother” is replaced by “gestational carrier”. When drawing up Britain’s ethical guidelines on surrogacy, the late Mary Warnock said empathy as a mother led her to insert safeguards for surrogates against exploitation. But does a “gestational carrier”, a mere vessel, have rights or even feelings?

Announcing the erasure of words like “mother”, Pelosi declared that gender-neutral language is “future focused”. Increasingly feminists are told that biological sex is boring, outdated and reductive while “gender identity” is modern and progressive. Except in her book Invisible Women Caroline Criado-Perez notes how much of the world is predicated upon a default male. From seatbelts designed for men’s larger bodies, making women more at risk in car accidents, to health guidance on heart attacks which underplays differing female symptoms, sex impacts on our lives. Gender-neutral speech doesn’t make biology go away: it just removes the analytical tools to understand and address it.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in government data. Scotland’s chief statistician has declared that in most cases “data should be collected on the basis of gender identity rather than sex”. Protests from academics that this would render government data worthless have been wafted away as fussing about something statistically insignificant: only a small number of people would record a different gender identity to their sex.

This week it was announced that the number of women committing sexual crimes against children has almost doubled, from 1.5 to 3 per cent of total cases, between 2015 and 2019. Is this true? Are more child victims of female assaults coming forward? Have historic female offending patterns suddenly changed? In fact, we have no way of knowing because since around 2015 individual police forces, indeed individual officers, have in the absence of clear Home Office guidance decided to record sexual offenders by gender identity not sex. (Even when the crime is rape, which under English law always involves a penis.) Only through freedom of information requests do we know that around 38 per cent of women in prison for sexual offences are trans women. Could this explain changes to child-sex offending rates too?

Thankfully in Britain the 2010 Equality Act protects people from discrimination both on the basis of “gender transition” and sex. (Although LGBT groups like Stonewall lobby corporations and even government departments to illegally disregard the latter.) It is a profound shame that President Biden did not also seek to enshrine both characteristics in US law rather than simply conflate gender identity with sex. There was no question that US trans people, indeed lesbians and gay men too, were profoundly vulnerable in ways now thankfully unimaginable here.
Obliterating biological sex will not help their cause. Already in US high schools female athletes are forced to compete against teenage males who identify as girls. In Connecticut, two trans athletes have dominated track events, breaking girls’ state records, denying female competitors qualification to higher contests. These include Selina Soule, 17, who plans to take her discrimination case to the Supreme Court. What do activists tell such girls? That they must try harder or just suck up their defeat.

Yet a cattle farmer in rural Montana or a New Jersey wrestling fan knows that males have physical advantages over females. No semantic shifts, no cancelling of words, can change what ordinary people see: to them activists who deny biology sound like flat-earthers, while trans women athletes look like cheats. The liberal insistence on placing every male criminal who identifies as a woman — including murderers, rapists and domestic abusers — in female jails looks cruel and even deranged. A backlash can only build.

There is no need for this rancorous divide between trans activists and feminists. Yet peace depends upon an agreement that sex exists, that in certain limited circumstances it overrides gender, and that language to describe biological reality is valid.

For trans people, navigating a society which often diminishes and misunderstands them, it is natural to have minted neologisms to describe their experiences, such as trans men who become parents referring to “chest feeding”. But gender-neutral terms should not replace the words women need to describe their own lives and uphold their rights in public discourse.

“People evolve a language in order to describe and thus control their circumstances,” said the American writer James Baldwin, “or in order not to be submerged by a reality that they cannot articulate. And if they cannot articulate it, they are submerged.”

[dustweaver]

Ori am citit eu prea in diagonala, ori, pe scurt, autoarei i se pare ca femeile trans au toate avantajele (reale sau percepute ale) sexului masculin si le mai vor si pe alea ale sexului feminin fara sa fi mancat/manance salam cu soia, cum ar veni.

But does a “gestational carrier”, a mere vessel, have rights or even feelings?

De parca frecarea de grija de sentimentele mamei (in special post-partum) chiar ar fi fost vreodata o parte semnificativa a "the culture of motherhood".

From seatbelts designed for men’s larger bodies, making women more at risk in car accidents

Da, draga, ai dreptate, dar vezi ca excluzi femeile inalte si nu numai.

males have physical advantages over females.

Bine dar stai asa, de ce, in fond si la urma urmei? Procent de masa musculara, statura, nivel de testosteron? Pai hai sa definim pe baza uneia dintre astea niste intervale, primele doua caracteristici sunt de regula mult mai vizibile decat ce acopera chilotii.

For trans people, navigating a society which often diminishes and misunderstands them, it is natural to have minted neologisms to describe their experiences, such as trans men who become parents referring to “chest feeding”.

Nu pot sa nu ma-ntreb: cu cate persoane trans o fi vorbit autoarea? Methinks zero.
Uai, ce ma oftica astia carora li se rastoarna lumea daca nu pot pune imediat pe fiecare in casuta corespunzatoare pe care-au invatat-o cand era stra-strabunica fata si nu era cale ferata.

A propos de testosteron, ne-sportivii (de exemplu functionarii publici) au voie sa se dopeze sau vine WADA dupa ei?

[Melania]

Nancy Pelosi, da.

[MumaPadurii]

Va amintesc ca discutiile despre transsexuali si neomarxism, atat in forma clasica, cat si in cea reactionara (trans-exclusionary radical feminist - TERF), se poarta pe acest topic.

Tocmai vorbisem aici despre inlocuirea expresiei "brest milk" cu "chest milk" si "lapte matern" cu "lapte uman".

Cica autoare articolului e o TERF-a
...

Cu voia voastra, se poate continua discutia aici.