#various egregious social issues | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 9 months ago

Text

By: Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer

Published: Feb 13, 2024

On October 7th, 2023, most Americans watched in horror as Israel experienced the deadliest terrorist attacks in its history. In the days and weeks that followed, some of that horror mingled with confusion.

For example, on Oct. 8th—before an Israeli counteroffensive was launched—BLM Grassroots issued a “Statement in Solidarity with the Palestinian People,” writing that they “stand unwaveringly on the side of the oppressed” and “see clear parallels between Black and Palestinian people.” Two days later, BLM Chicago posted a graphic featuring a paraglider with a Palestinian flag and the text “I stand with Palestine” (terrorists had used paraglides to attack a Music festival on Oct. 7th, killing over three hundred civilians). Even more bizarre posts began turning up on social media. The Slow Factory, a progressive group with over 600k followers on Instagram, posted a graphic stating “Free Palestine is a Feminist issue. It’s a reproductive rights issue. It’s an Indigenous Rights issue. It’s a Climate Justice issue, it’s a Queer Rights issue, it’s an Abolitionist Issue.” The group “Queers for Palestine” began showing up with signs at various demonstrations. A banner hanging from a building at the University of British Columbia announced, “Trans liberation cannot happen without Palestinian Liberation.”

What explains these signs and sentiments, which seem to be springing up organically around the country and other parts of the world? How is the Hamas-Israel war connected to climate change? Why is it a feminist issue? Why are “queers” standing in solidarity with Palestine when Israel’s government is far more permissive than Palestine’s (for example, same-sex activity is criminalized in Gaza)? What has inspired an outpouring of egregious and unconscionable antisemitic rhetoric and behavior in various cities and on a number of college campuses?

The answer is, in a word, intersectionality. In this article, we’ll explain the intersectional framework that undergirds these phenomena and will then offer a brief reflection on how it can be resisted.

* * *

Intersectionality was a term coined by critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. She used it to describe the discrimination faced by Black women, whose social location (that is, their relationship to power within U.S. society) was predicated on both their race and their sex simultaneously. In other words, a Black woman’s experience cannot be reduced to merely the sum of her race and sex experiences. Instead, she occupies a unique (and uniquely marginalized) category that is shaped by both her Blackness and femininity.

Although Crenshaw’s first examples focused on race and gender, intersectionality was rapidly applied to other categories like sexuality, class, and disability, just as Crenshaw intended. Indeed, precursors to Crenshaw’s conception of intersectionality can be found in other Black feminist writings. For example, the Combahee River Collective Statement insisted in 1977 that it is “difficult to separate race from class from sex oppression because... they are most often experienced simultaneously” and feminist Beverly Lindsay argued in 1979 that sexism, racism, and classism exposed poor Black women to “triple jeopardy” (see Collins and Bilge, Intersectionality, p. 76).

So in what ways does intersectionality shape progressive views on the Israel-Hamas War?

First, through its embrace of the social binary; second, through its implicit adoption of the category of “whiteness,” and finally through its commitment to solidarity in liberation.

The Social Binary

While the concept of intersectionality can be understood narrowly to refer to the trivial claim that our identities are complex and multifaceted, Crenshaw intended a far more robust understanding rooted in a prominent feature of critical social theory, what we call the “social binary.” The social binary refers to the belief that society is divided into oppressed groups and oppressor groups along lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, physical ability, religion, and a host of other identity markers. Crenshaw did not merely believe that Black women (and White men, and Hispanic lesbians) all had different social locations, but that they had differently-valued social locations.

In a 1989 paper, Crenshaw asked the reader to “[imagine] a basement which contains all people who are disadvantaged on the basis of race, sex, class, sexual preference, age and/or physical ability” and who were then literally stacked “feet standing on shoulders with the multiply-disadvantaged at the bottom and the fully privilege at the very top.” This understanding of intersectionality necessarily assumes a hierarchy of oppression and privilege such that people can be ranked in order from most to least oppressed.

Although Crenshaw didn’t discuss “colonial status” in the body of her paper, she did state in a footnote that Third World feminism is inevitably subordinated to the fight against “international domination” and “imperialism.” It is at precisely this point that intersectionality affects progressive understanding of Israel-Palestinian relationships.

Later critical social theorists, and especially postcolonial scholars, believe that colonialism—like white supremacy, the patriarchy, and heterosexism—divides society into oppressed and oppressor groups. Because the Israeli government is positioned as a “colonizing foreign power,” it is therefore necessarily oppressive. Conversely, Palestinians are then necessarily positioned as a colonized, oppressed group. Never mind the spurious assessment of both. Note here that critical theorists make these judgments not on the basis of the actual history of the region (which is complex) or a careful analysis of particular Israeli policies (which are certainly open to debate). Rather, the mere identification of Israel as a “colonial power” is all that is needed to set up a social binary between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The social binary then explains why some progressives make such a quick, simplistic analysis: intersectionality deceptively primes them to see the world in these black-and-white terms.

Whiteness

A second factor that contributes to a reflexive pro-Palestinian perspective by some in the U.S. is the ascendance of critical race theory and an attendant understanding of “whiteness.”

CRT, which was birthed concurrently with intersectionality in the late 1980s, conceptualizes whiteness not as a skin color or even as an ethnicity, but as a social construct that provides tangible and intangible benefits to those raced as “White.” (Notwithstanding that white skin and whiteness are often conflated when it serves the interests of progressives). Whiteness as a social construct signals that “whiteness” is fluid and malleable and need not only include people traditionally understood as White. For example, in his important 2003 book Racism Without Racists, sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva hypothesized that America could develop a “triracial order” consisting of “Whites,” “Honorary Whites,” and “Collective Black.” On Bonilla-Silva’s reading, Whites would include not just Anglo-Saxons, but also “Assimilated white Latinos,” “Some multiracials,” “Assimilated (urban) Native Americans,” and “A few Asian-origin people.” On the other hand, the “Collective Black” category would include “Vietnamese Americans,” “Dark-skinned Latinos,” and “Reservation-bound Native Americans” (see Bonilla-Silva, Racism Without Racists, 228).

Critical race theorists have long wrestled with the place of Jewish people within their racial hierarchy. On the one hand, Americans did not traditionally consider Jews “White” and the U.S. has explicitly discriminated against Jews in the recent past (Jewish admission quotas at Ivy League Schools being one glaring example). On the other hand, many critical race theorists today believe that most Jews have assimilated to whiteness and benefit from “White privilege” and therefore should be classified as White. In her chapter “Whiteness, Intersectionality, and the Contradictions of White Jewish Identity,” Jewish psychologist Jodie Kliman writes that,

As European Jews have slowly ‘become’ white over the last three generations (Brodkin, 1998), we have internalized White supremacy in general and anti-Black prejudice in particular...Immigrant Jews and their descendants assimilated into US society, becoming white, or sort of white...

Unfortunately, to the extent that American Jews are viewed as “White adjacent” while Palestinians are viewed as “Brown,” the former are members of an oppressor group and the latter of an oppressed group. This categorization adds another layer to knee-jerk progressive support for Palestinians.

Liberation

Finally, the glue that binds together pro-Palestinian, pro-LGBTQ, and feminist activists is a shared commitment to mutual liberation. Again, this commitment is not new; it is found in the earliest texts of critical race theory, including those authored by Crenshaw herself. For instance, in the 1993 anthology Words that Wound, she and other co-founders of CRT wrote that a “defining element” of CRT is the commitment to ending all forms of oppression: They write:

Critical race theory works toward the end of eliminating racial oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of oppression. Racial oppression is experienced by many in tandem with oppressions on grounds of gender, class, or sexual orientation. Critical race theory measures progress by a yardstick that looks to fundamental social transformation. The interests of all people of color necessarily require not just adjustments within the established hierarchies, but a challenge to hierarchy itself (Matusda et al., Words that Wound, 6-7).

This last point is crucial to understanding the automatic solidarity between, say, LGBTQ activists and decolonial activists. One could, in principle, accept that both LGBTQ people and Palestinians are oppressed groups and still conclude that their goals are mutually exclusive. For example, most Palestinians are Muslim and traditional Islam rejects the sexual autonomy demanded by LGBTQ activists. Yet an intersectional framework insists that homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and colonialism are all “interlocking systems of oppression” that can and must be overturned simultaneously—never mind the details.

Lest anyone worry that we’re misinterpreting or overstating the degree to which popular progressive sentiments surrounding this issue are shaped by a fundamental commitment to intersectionality, consider the article “Palestine is a Feminist Issue” from the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights. It begins with a quotation from Mariam Barghouti “Fundamentally speaking, feminism cannot support racism, supremacy and oppressive domination in any form” and immediately explains intersectionality in its opening paragraph:

Intersectional feminism is a framework that holds that women’s overlapping, or intersecting, identities impact the way they experience oppression and discrimination. Intersectionality rejects the idea that a woman’s experience can be reduced to only her gender, and insists that we look at the multiple factors shaping her life: race, class, ethnicity, disability, citizenship status, sexual orientation, and others, as well as how systems of oppression are connected... When we look at the world through an intersectional feminist lens, it becomes clear that Palestine is a feminist issue.

Conclusions

While the reaction of some progressives to the Hamas-Israel war took many people, especially Jewish people, by surprise, it was largely predictable given the powerful influence that intersectionality exerts on our culture. Intersectionality can lead to a grotesque moral calculus that justifies Hamas’ rape of Israeli girls as an understandable response of the oppressed lashing out at their oppressor. It has caused university presidents at our elite institutions to shamefully equivocate and prevaricate when given opportunity to unapologetically condemn antisemitism. Unfortunately, these examples are natural outworkings of the intersectional worldview.

For those who are alarmed by what seems to be growing acceptance of anti-Semitism within some segments of the left, we offer the following action items.

First, we should resist critical theory’s simplistic moral categories of Oppressor vs. Oppressed. To the extent that we see every conflict as a battle between innocent victims and cruel victimizers, we will gloss over the moral complexities of reality.

Second, we need to see people primarily as individuals rather than as avatars of their demographic groups. It’s much easier to dehumanize abstract categories than the nervous old woman across the street or the energetic cashier at the grocery store. Personal connection is an antidote to demonization.

Finally, we need to be realistic about the perniciousness of “woke” ideology, which has been infiltrating our institutions, universities, businesses, and places of worship for decades. Many social movements have waved the banner of progress and justice while slaughtering tens of millions. If we don’t learn from history, we very well may repeat it.

#Neil Shenvi #antisemitism #queers for palestine #chickens for KFC #hamas supporters #critical theory #oppressor vs oppressed #oppressor #oppressed #intersectionality #intersectional feminism #whiteness #social binary #woke #wokeness #cult of woke #wokeism #wokeness as religion #religion is a mental illness

11 notes · View notes

djuvlipen · 1 year ago

Text

Below is the full text of the speech made by ERRC Board Chair Ethel Brooks on Addressing Violence against Women – the Responsibility of the State at the Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting in Vienna on 2 July 2018. In a powerful address covering coercive sterilization, forced evictions and institutional violence against Roma, she called for gender mainstreaming and an intersectional approach to overcome racism and marginalization:

“We, Roma and Sinti women in the OSCE area, are vulnerable to sexual violence, domestic violence and trafficking, often with no protection and no recourse, because much of the violence –whether it comes from inside or outside of our communities—is framed as “culture.” We must move away from this dangerous formation, often upheld by participating states and authorities … Roma and Sinti have experienced participating states as perpetrators of gendered and intersectional violence —from border control to the withholding of birth documents, refusal of equal treatment, police harassment and police violence. In order to achieve safeguards and protection for Roma and Sinti, women and children, disabled and able-bodied, we need to mainstream gender, to understand racialization and marginalization, and to take an intersectional approach to this work.”

Madam Moderator,

The intersectional vulnerabilities of Roma and Sinti women are evidenced across the OSCE region, taking on various forms in a variety of contexts. Roma and Sinti women in the OSCE region are subjected to gender-based violence that is magnified by racism, social and economic exclusion, and discrimination based on ability, sexuality and citizenship. While participating states are responsible for the protection of their citizens and providing services to those harmed by state and non-state actors, they often turn a blind eye to the discrimination and violence faced by Roma and Sinti women.

In particular, OSCE Decision No. 4/13, which reaffirmed the OSCE commitments regarding Roma and Sinti, noted, “that Roma and Sinti continue to be the targets of racism and bias-motivated violence in the OSCE area…in this context … Roma and Sinti women and girls are particularly vulnerable to multiple forms of discrimination, as well as to violence and harassment…[and] Roma and Sinti women’s rights and equality between men and women, in particular, need to be supported and promoted by State policies and institutions, with the active involvement of Roma and Sinti women.” It is important to remind participating states of the responsibility to uphold the rights of Roma and Sinti and, in particular the most vulnerable: Roma and Sinti women, girls, and women with disabilities. To that end, I would like to voice several examples that demonstrate the intersectional vulnerabilities of Roma and Sini women to violence and lack of state response to the violence these women face (1) compensation mechanisms related to the sterilization of Roma women in Czech Republic, Slovakia and elsewhere; (2) the vulnerability of Roma and Sinti women and during forced evictions and racist attacks on Roma and Sinti communities, and (3) in the denial of the provision of basic services such as healthcare, education, water, electricity and housing.

Forced and Coerced Sterilization

Coerced and forced sterilization is among the most egregious violations of Roma and Sinti women’s rights. Roma and Sinti women have been subject to coerced and forced sterilization in a number of participating States of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Cases are documented in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Germany and Uzbekistan.

In 2009, the Czech Government issued an official apology for its forced and coercive sterilization practices against Roma and Sinti and other women. This acknowledgement has come in response to pressure and detailed testimony by survivors and victims’ groups, including Elena Gorolova, who is a participant in this meeting. I want to take a moment to thank Ms. Gorolova for her work. The importance of Elena Gorolova’s testimony, of the documentation of violations by organizations of victims and survivors, has to be recognized and recorded by the OSCE and participating states. The activism of Ms. Gorolova and others, their courage and their sustained commitment has brought these violations to light.

Sweden, in response to the White Paper outlining the historical and present violence, discrimination and rights violations carried out against Roma, formed an independent body, the Swedish Commission against Anti-Gypsyism. The Commission consisted of independent experts, including Roma, and worked to defend the rights of Roma and to fight against anti-Gypsyism, which it defined as a particular form of racism directed against Roma. The Committee provided recommendations about the documented forced and coercive sterilization of Roma and Sinti women and the registration of Roma in police records across decades in Sweden, including compensation, historical documentation and education in the schools. Sweden has provided compensation to victims and recognition of this history, and I further encourage the Swedish government to build upon these recommendations to ensure the security of its Roma and Sinti citizens.

Participating states with a history of forced and coerced sterilization of Roma and Sinti women, including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Hungary and others, must recognize the testimony and the demands of Roma and Sinti women as documenting a terrible history that must be rectified and for which victims must be compensated.

Based on the recommendations of the participants in the 2016 OSCE/ODIHR Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues conference on Forced and Coercive Sterilization of Roma Women and the 2016 European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) report on forced and coerced sterilization of Roma and Sinti women, OSCE participating states are overdue in providing appropriate compensation for all victims of forced and coerced sterilization, and in recognizing the deleterious effects of the program, which disproportionally affected Roma and Sinti women and the documentation and testimonial work done by Roma and Sinti women victims and survivors on this issue. Furthermore, participating states should suspend any statute of limitation on making claims against the state and provide free legal services for victims; there should be state transparency in allocating compensation and the inclusion of representatives of victims’ groups and independent experts in the process.

One of the most significant barriers to justice for those victims of forced sterilization remains the lack of compensation by the state. Recognition without compensation does not bring justice to the victims and survivors. It is time to bring true justice, recognition and compensation to the victims and survivors of this abuse by the state. Once participating states assume this critical responsibility, the forced and coerced sterilization of Roma and Sinti women at hands of participating states can finally be relegated to an awful history rather than maintained as an ongoing violation.

Forced Evictions and Violence against Roma and Sinti Communities

In situations of forced eviction, expulsion and violence against communities, women disproportionately bear the burden. In the wake of eviction and violence, women are often tasked with finding educational resources, new homes, income sources, health care and legal protection for their families. Forced evictions and expulsions have been carried out in recent years by government and municipal authorities in France, Roma and Sintia and Italy, as well as in other participating states. Italy, in particular, has carried out evictions and deportations of Roma over the past several years. Most recently, Italy’s Interior Minister Matteo Salvini called for a census of Roma in the name of protecting children. Italy has a responsibility to its Roma and Sinti citizens, to protect Roma –women, children, men, everyone—from violence, including that of threats by its ministers and forced evictions of its Roma and Sinti communities.

Most recently, violence against Roma and Sinti communities has been carried out in Ukraine, with six attacks on Roma and Sinti communities in Ukraine by ultranationalist groups in the last two months alone. A little over a week ago, David Popp, 23, was stabbed to death and several others –including women and children—were severely injured. These attacks have followed firebombs, evictions and forced marches by neo-Nazis; authorities have made arrests following the most recent attack, but in the months leading up to this attack, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Freedom House called upon the Interior Ministry to act upon hate crimes and violence and to implement effective preventative measures, to make arrests and to prosecute those carrying out the violence. Roma and Sinti organizations are bringing legal action against the Ukrainian National Police on behalf of those who were attacked in May and June. It is the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens from pogroms, evictions and violence. Roma and Sinti women are again disproportionately affected in these instances. Ukraine must take all necessary measures to protect Roma and Sinti communities from violence and to defend the rights of its Roma and Sinti citizens to be free of violence from state and non-state actors alike.

Intersectional Methods and the Mainstreaming of Gender

We, Roma and Sinti women in the OSCE area, are vulnerable to sexual violence, domestic violence and trafficking, often with no protection and no recourse, because much of the violence –whether it comes from inside or outside of our communities—is framed as “culture.” We must move away from this dangerous formation, often upheld by participating states and authorities. Yes, we experience violence –at the hands of the state and also within our communities. This is not culture, but rather a result of marginalization, neglect and violence faced by Roma and Sinti. As always, women are most vulnerable, especially when state and police do not intervene to protect us from violence. The framing of violence against women as a cultural issue reinforces the very racism and sexism that deny us services, protection and voice in making policy. The framing of Roma and Sinti culture as a problem has led to the forcible taking children into state care, in Sweden, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the UK, Hungary and Roma and Sinti. It has led to the denial of basic services: education, healthcare and housing. It has led to the segregation of public spaces, from maternity wards in Bulgaria to schools across the OSCE region. With the rise of nationalism, extremism and racism within and outside of participating states, we see more instances of violence, insecurity and marginalization for Roma and Sinti communities.

It has led to sexual abuse of children under state care, as was recently uncovered in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. After it was discovered that children were being sexually abused in a state institution, the Interior Ministry called for an investigation and removal of those responsible. The state responded before the issue was taken to court. This response is a positive sign, to be followed up by proper protection and compensation for the victims and their families, an overhaul of the system of state care, ensuring the protection of children and supporting families to avoid the disproportionate taking of Roma and Sinti kids into care.

Roma and Sinti have experienced participating states as perpetrators of gendered and intersectional violence —from border control to the withholding of birth documents, refusal of equal treatment, police harassment and police violence. In order to achieve safeguards and protection for Roma and Sinti, women and children, disabled and able-bodied, we need to mainstream gender, to understand racialization and marginalization, and to take an intersectional approach to this work.

Madam Moderator, thank you for allowing me this time. I want to thank ODIHR for its commitment and continued dedication to defending Roma and Sinti rights, and the rights and security of Roma and Sinti women and girls. In the examples of violence and state responsibility outlined above, there have been positive developments that can be built upon by participating states and the OSCE region. ODHIR has been a leader in defending and promoting Roma and Sinti women’s rights and I hope to see a renewal of and an expansion of that commitment over the course of our discussions today and beyond.

#Roma #Romani women and housing #romani segregation #forced sterilization of romani women #romani feminist writings #romani people and state care

6 notes · View notes

supertrainstationh · 1 year ago

Text

My take on the Blair/Illuminatii situation

I never considered myself a fan of Blair/Iilluminatii's videos, and never subscribed to their YouTube channel.

However, I did enjoy her videos, and watched them whenever it happened that YouTube's algorithm recommended them to me, and I was interested in the topic of the particular featured video.

For those who aren't familiar, Blair found success on YouTube by publishing videos that document accusations of scandal, crime, misconduct, and corruption, usually relating to businesses, organizations, governments, and individuals.

She presents the videos using a mixture of voice-over narration and her PNGtuber avatar. The videos are produced with assistance from a behind-the-scenes team of hired help.

After ongoing success, Blair ironically found herself facing public accusations of misconduct.

This caused an upheaval within her base of viewers, and called into question her credibility in putting out videos that highlight the misdeeds of others.

Since I don't keep current with social media drama, my first awareness of any serious controversy surrounding Blair was a video she put out responding to the various accusations.

I consumed this video in an audio-only format, listening to it while I was driving my car, much as I would with a podcast.

I did this because many videos on the Iilluminatii channel are written and planned to be able to be enjoyed without visuals in the style of a podcast, though in this case, I would later regret listening to it rather than watching.

I listened to Blair's points, and while I remained conscious that she would naturally paint the multiple situations to be as favorable to herself as possible, it was also true that I felt that what she was saying generally sounded reasonable enough.

At the same time, I was aware that her video would only be one side of a story that seemed to have a number of perspectives, and a lot of small but important details to filter through, and I was already on my guard against trusting her long before these controversies, for reasons I'll detail later.

I was interested to hear the counterarguments to Blair's defenses once they were assembled into a digestible package by a disinterested third party, a task which another YouTuber, iNabber, fulfilled by releasing a two hour video, which I will reference later.

I am not a fan of Blair and have no interest in defending her in terms of taking a principled stance on whether she is wrong or right in general, but in regards to the interactions involving Legal Eagle, Hbomberguy, and accusations of plagiarism going back and forth, I have some personal opinions I'd like to share.

I think that Blair was wrong to accuse Legal Eagle and his team of plagiarizing her video, which even Blair herself has deigned to admit.

When it comes to Hbomberguy accusing Blair of plagiarism, I think the issue is more complex.

Hbomberguy was wrong to accuse Blair and her team of plagiarizing content to produce the video in question.

However, Blair and her writing and editing team failed to employ best practices in properly sourcing the quotation they were using in the allegedly plagiarized scene.

In spite of this, within the context of the scene and the manner in which the video was originally presented, its reasonably apparent that Blair's video was not intending to present anyone else's work as their own original research, and took effort to establish the quotation as exactly that, even if the combined effect of the editing, writing, and source linking, failed to make this as explicit as possible, leaving room for misinterpretation of the use of the quote as plagiarism, even if it ultimately was not.

So I would say that Blair and her team made a mistake in that case, but not nearly as malicious or egregious of one as Hbomberguy was accusing.

Its also worth pointing out that the video in question was among the earlier of her documentary style videos, and that she adopted better practices in the years since.

One thing I do find unfortunate about having chosen to watch Blair's response video as an audio-only podcast was that I was left unaware of Blair's choice to display in legible form an original handwritten letter declaring suicidal intentions that was written by one of the people that was later involved in the public accusations against her, which they fortunately never committed to carrying out.

If the inclusion of this letter served any genuinely constructive purpose in allowing Blair to defend herself against inaccurate accusations of misconduct, I expect she would have explicated the contents of the letter and highlighted points of importance within it.

Instead, due to having only listened to Blair's video, I wasn't aware that she actually exposed the contents of the letter until watching iNabber's video on the matter.

I can't see the reproduction of this letter within the video as anything other than a gratuitous and malicious attempt to damage the person's credibility. This would have made me regard Blair as untrustworthy, even if other evidence and context within these accusations didn't do so already.

As I said, I never had any loyalty to or investment in Blair, and no interest in proving or disproving if she is a good or bad person.

I try to maintain that level of detachment from most of the entertainment creators who's content I consume - I'm not their friends, nor are they people I trust, they are strangers that produce material that I use to momentarily distract or amuse me while I'm eating, driving, or doing other mundane tasks.

If it so happens that I found out that they did something outside of their entertainment content that makes me wary of or uncomfortable with the idea of supporting them with my time or money,I lose nothing by simply choosing not to partake of their material in the future.

Though I believe that some of the accusations against Blair, regardless of how accurate they are or aren't, are colored at least partially by personal bias against her, even when taking that into consideration, what I can reasonably assess to have probably taken place puts her in a category of people from which I'm not interested in going out of my way to consume their content.

This is in spite of the fact that the videos themselves, in my opinion, tend to be entertaining and well put together, even if some have issues that are better discussed elsewhere.

Before any serious controversies or uncertainties about her arose, I was already personally scrutinizing content Blair published for bias, adgenda, and what might be described as "virtue signaling", and that concern from me had nothing to do with her well known political and ideological alignments.

Prior to Blair's channel focusing on scandal and scandal-adjacent mini documentaries, she used to publish "reaction video" type content in which she viewed and responded to pre-curated selections of memes and other humor oriented material.

Among these was a enumerated series of videos where Blair reacted to collections of "furry cringe" images gathered up on a certain community on Reddit.

Naturally a lot of the material from this community showcased extreme or eccentric sexual content, receipts of objectionable statements or actions, and other material along these lines, all originating from the furry fandom.

These evoked the sorts of responses from Blair you'd probably expect, and given the nature of a lot of the specific images, the reactions weren't necessarily unreasonable.

In one of these videos, Blair reacted to a completely harmless three panel comic by the artist Accelldraws in which a Vaporeon, a fish-like Pokemon, opens a fortune cookie, and discovers that the fortune inside the cookie bears the message "You're a feesh. :3".

For the sake of being as clear as possible to those unfamiliar with Pokemon, the entire comedic element of the comic strip was that a fish-like Pokemon creature opened a fortune cookie and was confused to receive an unexpectedly specific fortune which correctly stated that they were a fish.

Blair responded to this utterly benign comic strip with an extended reaction of abject horror and disgust.

It was so over-the-top that before the scene was even over I was questioning if the display was genuine, or performative in nature, regardless if she was actually upset by the comic or not.

Either way, during her prolonged outburst of outspoken disapproval, Blair stated that she had no understanding of the meaning of the comic, but was so sickened by it that she specifically instructed her viewers to refrain from any attempt to contact her to explain the joke, as so to prevent her from being further disgusted.

This reaction from Blair made me conscious of the fact that she was not only willing to be spectacularly outraged by something that she was consciously aware that she didn't understand, but was also eager to refuse any outside perspective to enable her to understand.

Blair has, to my knowledge, done a good job within her documentary-style videos in highlighting which parts of the copy are her personal opinions rather than concrete facts.

But I had to stop and ask what it means for Blair to decide that being seen by her viewers getting angry over an online comic strip was more productive than actually attempting to understand the material she was criticizing.

This is especially true when having an audience of Blair's size could reasonably lead to the artist of the comic facing targeted harassment from a few of her tens of thousands of viewers who might be liable to get upset at whoever made one of their favorite entertainers so outspokenly disgusted.

Meanwhile the content in question is one of the most intensely benign pieces of online humor ever to be produced, and harmless enough to present to a Kindergarten student.

Naturally, that event made me treat her videos with additional scrutiny and skepticism, even if I liked her material overall.

Coincidentally or not, the video in question is no longer available for public viewing on Blair's channel, along with a great deal of the older, more humor and reaction based non-documentary videos she used to do.

While its true that those older videos didn't reflect the current direction of the channel, that specific moment already damaged her credibility to me as someone to be taken seriously as an even and objective first point of contact for the often controversial subjects she takes up.

And that was before she started sending legal threats to attempt to silence her critics.

I finish this by mentioning that there are a number of multi-level marketing vultures on social media who already disliked Blair, and later on jumped in to support critics and accusers from her personal and professional life.

This dislike for Blair and support for her critics stems mainly from Blair having released videos highlighting the abuses of predatory MLM businesses, and everyone operating under such a petty and self-serving motivation is a walking, living, breathing joke, no matter what poor choices Blair may be accountable for outside of the video themselves.

#illuminaughtii #youtube #drama

3 notes · View notes

thatskystranger · 2 years ago

Text

01/19/23, 18:04.

with @pillowpetpals, a real buddy of mine through everything.

I did not go missing, but I did stop playing—at least, for a while. A long while, it seems, judging by my post history. I may start posting again, we will see.

I fell out of love with Sky due to my issues with things such as Season Pass. As a collector, I truly believe that everything in a game should be accessible to everyone, even those who feel they cannot afford to support the creators by paying for those transactions. I feel very passionately about the Season Pass model and games that have similar structures, growing up in a very financially unsure environment and experiencing the negatives of a recession twice in my life. I grew up envious and bitter, feeling the exclusion of games like Wizard101 with its pay-to-access-the-rest-of-the-game scheme, and Club Penguin/MovieStarPlanet's pay-for-infinitely-better-everything memberships.

However, that comes the issue; if not for Season Pass and those transactions, Sky would not be as profitable and would most likely struggle as a result, resulting in more egregious methods of securing financial stability for the employees (and the server costs!) involved. Time and time again, there are greedy lows that companies would stoop to in order to keep the lights on. I see too often that when we suggest to remove things, there is never a proper solution that replaces it that will satisfy everyone; and even I, who feels very strongly about this, do not have an answer.

Then I realized the beauty of friends and community. The whole point of Sky is, really, cooperation. Eden is vastly easier with friends, and seasoned players with more Light than others are encouraged to help moths win their Flame. There's a reason you can purchase Season Passes and IAPs for your friends. You are supposed to build rapport and bring people along with you for the ride, to create friendships that will last, at least, for a while.

So while I still don't like nor appreciate Sky for the Season Pass model and various other changes (such as Social Areas), there's usually a silver lining to things like these.

This is not to say I have issues with people who pay for Season Pass, and that you should stop doing so; quite the opposite. It's these people who support the creators financially, who are the reason why Sky is still a free-to-play game. And while I and many others cannot satisfy the unending itch that demands to collect-em-all, I will gather what I can and be happy with the remains I receive.

I also think that, while yes, Sky is a mobile/Switch game and therefore will attract a child audience regardless of target demographic, I believe it's a less egregious example of pay-for-benefits because there is an older and wider demographic towards it, unlike the early web games I mentioned beforehand. The gameplay loop is not for everyone; the people who do pay for these Season Passes are more likely to be older because of this. The ads don't have a tone that typical children's media does; it feels mature, yet wholesome.

I don't mean to start up discourse or change anyone's mind because of this, but it is food for thought. I just like to be transparent when it comes to my interests and how I feel about them. Even though I speak authoritatively and with passion, we are not That Game Company, and we don't know if moving to a platform such as, say, Patreon, is viable, and even then the transition to another money source may be jarring or difficult for some people. We can only trust that TGC has our best interests in mind and we know what is best for their company and their game.

#stranger's photography #stranger & friends #daylight prairie #sanctuary islands #sky cotl #sky children of the light #skyblr

4 notes · View notes

boxfix123 · 2 months ago

Text

Spending $1.6 billion, a new tactic from the US?

In a disturbing turn of events, the United States has passed the "Malicious Influence Fund Authorization Act" targeting the People's Republic of China. This act is not only unjust but also a blatant display of American hypocrisy and a dangerous game that could have far-reaching consequences.

To begin with, the United States has long been known for its double standards. While it constantly accuses other countries of various misdeeds, it is often engaged in actions that are equally, if not more, egregious. The "Malicious Influence Fund Authorization Act" is a prime example of this hypocrisy. The U.S. claims to be a defender of democracy and human rights, yet it uses this act to allocate funds for activities that are clearly aimed at undermining another sovereign nation. This is a blatant interference in the internal affairs of China and goes against the principles of international law.

For years, the U.S. has pointed fingers at other countries for issues such as cyberattacks and influence campaigns. However, it is well-known that the U.S. itself has a long history of engaging in cyber espionage and using various means to influence the politics and economies of other countries. The National Security Agency's surveillance programs and the use of social media platforms for political manipulation are just a few examples. By passing this act, the U.S. is essentially saying that it is okay for it to do these things but not for others. This double standard is not only unjust but also undermines the credibility of the U.S. on the world stage.

Secondly, in a time of economic downturn, the decision by the U.S. government to spend a significant amount of money on this act is highly questionable. The U.S. economy is facing numerous challenges, including high inflation, a growing national debt, and sluggish economic growth. Instead of focusing on addressing these domestic issues and investing in infrastructure, education, and healthcare, the government is choosing to allocate funds to a project that is likely to have little positive impact.

Moreover, the U.S. has a track record of poor supervision of project funds. There is no guarantee that the money allocated for this act will be used effectively or transparently. In the past, there have been numerous examples of mismanagement and waste of taxpayer money in government-funded projects. Without proper oversight, there is a high risk that the "Malicious Influence Fund" will end up being used for political purposes rather than for legitimate activities. This not only wastes valuable resources but also further erodes public trust in the government.

Finally, the U.S. government's manipulation of public opinion topics and use of deceptive propaganda methods to smear the image of other countries can have serious consequences. By spreading false information and creating division, the U.S. is not only damaging its own credibility but also undermining the stability of the international community. In an era of globalization, countries are increasingly interconnected, and actions by one country can have a ripple effect on others.

When the U.S. uses propaganda to attack China, it can lead to increased tensions between the two countries and make it more difficult to resolve issues through dialogue and cooperation. This can also have a negative impact on global trade and economic stability. Additionally, by setting a bad example of using deception and manipulation in international relations, the U.S. is encouraging other countries to follow suit, which could lead to a breakdown of trust and cooperation on a global scale.

In conclusion, the U.S. "Malicious Influence Fund Authorization Act against the People's Republic of China" is a misguided and dangerous act that reveals the U.S.'s double standards, wasteful spending, and irresponsible behavior. The international community should see through this act and work together to oppose such unjust actions and promote genuine cooperation and peace. The U.S. government should focus on addressing its own domestic issues and building positive relationships with other countries rather than engaging in malicious activities that only serve to create division and instability.

#Malicious Influence Fund Authorization Act Against the People’s Republic of China

0 notes

yasminbashirovasan · 3 months ago

Text

Human Rights Under Siege: Examining Global Challenges and Resilience

In a world that has made significant strides in technological, economic, and social advancements, the struggle for fundamental human rights remains a crucial and often contentious issue. Despite the universal acknowledgment of these rights, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, violations continue to occur on a massive scale, affecting millions of people worldwide. This article explores the current landscape of human rights issues globally, highlighting the challenges faced by different populations, the underlying causes of these violations, and the efforts being made to protect and promote these essential rights.

The Global State of Human Rights

Human rights encompass a wide range of protections and freedoms, from the right to life and liberty to the right to work, education, and equality before the law. However, the extent to which these rights are upheld varies significantly across countries and regions. In many parts of the world, individuals and communities face severe repression, discrimination, and violence, often at the hands of their governments.

Repression and Authoritarianism

One of the most prominent issues in the realm of human rights is the rise of authoritarian regimes that suppress dissent and curtail freedoms. In countries like China, Russia, and Myanmar, the state exerts considerable control over its citizens, often resorting to harsh measures to silence opposition. China's treatment of ethnic minorities, particularly the Uyghurs, has garnered international attention, with reports of mass detentions, forced labor, and cultural erasure. The Chinese government's tight grip on information and strict censorship further exacerbate the situation, making it difficult for the outside world to grasp the extent of the abuses fully.

In Russia, political opposition has been systematically dismantled, with prominent figures like Alexei Navalny facing imprisonment and alleged poisoning. The government's crackdown on freedom of expression, assembly, and the press has created an environment where dissent is met with severe consequences. Similarly, in Myanmar, the military's brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters and ethnic minorities, including the Rohingya, has led to widespread condemnation and calls for international intervention.

War and Conflict: A Breeding Ground for Human Rights Abuses

War and conflict zones are hotbeds for some of the most egregious human rights violations. Syria, Yemen, and Ethiopia's Tigray region are just a few examples where prolonged conflict has led to devastating human rights abuses. In Syria, the decade-long civil war has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the displacement of millions. Both the Assad regime and various rebel groups have been accused of committing war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons, torture, and targeting of civilians.

Yemen's ongoing conflict, often described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, has led to widespread famine, disease, and displacement. The Saudi-led coalition and Houthi rebels have both been implicated in war crimes, including airstrikes on civilian targets and the use of child soldiers. In Ethiopia's Tigray region, reports of mass killings, sexual violence, and starvation have emerged as the conflict between government forces and Tigrayan fighters escalates, drawing international concern and calls for accountability.

Economic Disparities and Social Inequality

Economic inequality and social injustice are deeply intertwined with human rights. In many parts of the world, poverty, lack of access to education, and inadequate healthcare services severely limit individuals' ability to exercise their rights. Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of Asia, and Latin America face significant challenges in this regard, with large segments of the population living in extreme poverty.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed and exacerbated these inequalities. The economic fallout from the pandemic has disproportionately affected vulnerable populations, pushing millions into poverty and deepening existing disparities. Women, children, and marginalized communities have been particularly hard-hit, facing increased risks of domestic violence, exploitation, and deprivation of necessities.

Discrimination and Identity-Based Violence

Discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity remains a pervasive issue globally. In the United States and Europe, the resurgence of far-right movements and the rise of populism have contributed to increased racial and religious discrimination. The global Black Lives Matter movement has brought attention to systemic racism, particularly in law enforcement, and has sparked widespread calls for reform and accountability.

Gender-based violence is another significant concern, with women and girls worldwide facing various forms of abuse, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. In many societies, deeply entrenched patriarchal norms continue to limit women's rights and opportunities, contributing to widespread inequality and injustice. The LGBTQ+ community also faces severe discrimination and violence, particularly in countries where same-sex relationships are criminalized or where social stigma remains strong.

The Role of International Institutions and Civil Society

International organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and civil society play critical roles in advocating for human rights and holding violators accountable. The United Nations, through its various bodies and mechanisms, works to promote and protect human rights globally. However, the effectiveness of these efforts is often hampered by political considerations, lack of enforcement mechanisms, and the principle of state sovereignty.

NGOs like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and local human rights organizations are instrumental in documenting abuses, raising awareness, and providing support to victims. These organizations often operate in challenging and dangerous environments, facing threats from governments and non-state actors alike. Despite these obstacles, their work is essential in shining a light on human rights violations and mobilizing global action.

Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities

Addressing human rights issues requires a multifaceted approach that involves strengthening legal frameworks, improving accountability mechanisms, and fostering a global culture of respect for human dignity. Governments, international institutions, and civil society must work together to address the root causes of human rights abuses, such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination.

Education and awareness are also crucial in promoting human rights. By fostering a deeper understanding of human rights principles and the importance of protecting them, societies can build stronger, more resilient communities that are better equipped to resist oppression and injustice.

Human rights are under siege in many parts of the world, with millions of people suffering from repression, violence, and discrimination. However, the global community has the tools and the moral obligation to address these issues and work towards a future where all individuals can live with dignity and freedom. By standing in solidarity with those whose rights are violated and advocating for justice and equality, we can help to create a world where human rights are truly universal.

0 notes

jaitropdonglets · 3 months ago

Text

When People Ask Me to “Prove” I’m Autistic, What Do I Say?

Autism advice from a neurodiverse psychologist

6min read

Welcome to Autistic Advice #2, a semi-regular column where I respond to questions about neurodiversity, Autism acceptance, and disability rights from Autistic people and their allies. You can anonymously send me questions via my Curious Cat askbox.

Before we dive in, a bit about me: I am a 32-year-old Autistic psychologist who didn’t realize they were on the spectrum until their mid-20’s. My whole family is full of people with Autism-spectrum traits, and I have been active in the Autism self-advocacy community for about six years. On Medium, I’ve written extensively about my experiences, and the experiences of other adult Autistics whom I’ve interviewed for various projects. Though I am a research psychologist, I am not a therapist, and this column should not be treated as therapy.

My letter today is from someone whose Autistic identity is often doubted by other people. In particular, they are concerned that friends and family won’t believe they are Autistic because they heavily engage in masking, the act of hiding and inhibiting obvious Autistic traits. They write:

I’ve seen you post about masking and am curious- do you correct people when they assume you are neurotypical? Do you ever feel like you have to prove you are Autistic? Even though I spend most of my energy trying to appear neurotypical, I still feel like telling people I’m Autistic will result in my being asked to “prove it.” I worry that my inability to do that (since it’s impossible and all) will invalidate me, while simultaneously forcing me to break my very nice masking shell. I am hitting a point where I feel like I have to tell people I’m Autistic, in order for my opinion on some topics to be respected. But I also feel like it is not their business. I’m pretty stuck here. Anonymous

You are hitting on such a common double-bind associated with masking of Autistic traits, Anon. The people who are pressured to “mask” their Autistic traits are most commonly the people who don’t get a diagnosis early in life. Because they don’t have a diagnostic explanation for why they are “weird,” or for why they struggle, they are browbeaten into hiding as much of their difference as they can.

Masking can take the form of always striving to appear cheerful and agreeable (lest the Autistic person be branded antisocial and ‘awkward’), or it can take the form of becoming very deeply inhibited or withdrawn (because it’s harder to commit an egregious social faux pas if you just never say or do anything). Masking helps Autistic people disappear into the social wallpaper, which is very convenient for the people around us; it’s also an endless source of psychological torment for us.

Research has demonstrated that Autistic people who “mask” heavily suffer in all kinds of invisible yet pervasive ways. Maskers experience intense social anxiety and depression. We feel incredibly drained because masking is such an intense performance. It can even hurt on an existential level, divorcing an Autistic person from any meaningful sense of self. A lot of heavy maskers are compulsive people-pleasers or are profoundly detached from other people (or both). This is layered on top of whatever other pain associated with Autism the masker is experiencing — sensory issues, gut problems, coordination and muscle tone disabilities, etc.

The great tragedy of masking is that prejudiced neurotypical people force us to hide our Autism, then turn around and doubt our Autism exists because we have become so adept at hiding it in order to survive. Like you, Anon, I have been the victim of this. A former friend once wrote a scathing call-out post of me here on Medium, accusing me of being the “Rachel Dolezal of Autism.” His “proof” that I wasn’t Autistic? I was too charming. And I had friends. And a job.

Disabled people are haunted by the myth of the opportunistic faker. People with accessible parking tags are harassed in parking lots and stores by abled folks who are convinced their physical disabilities are fake. Teachers, professors, and classmates interrogate the needs of students with IEPs and other classroom accommodations, hoping to catch a phony disabled student in a lie. Our entire social welfare system is structured around the belief in the “fake disabled person”; people with qualifying conditions must submit themselves to endless investigations, doctor’s visits, court hearings, and other tests to prove they really are disabled, and really deserve the meager benefits they get.

Abled people resent having to provide benefits and accessibility tools to disabled individuals, so they try to sniff out liars and cheats relentlessly, even when there is no evidence that fakers are a real social problem. This extends to mental illness and cognitive disabilities such as Autism. People often resist the idea of becoming more tolerant towards Autistics (and neurodiverse people in general), thinking that it’s no a suitable “excuse” for thinking differently. Instead of seeing increased social latitude and tolerance as a net positive for anyone, they see it as an unfair benefit Autistics get that others don’t have.

So, Anon, you asked how I personally deal with these kinds of questions and doubts. Personally, I do not engage with them. Just as I refuse to prove my transness to anyone, I categorically refuse to prove my Autism. I don’t apologize or over-explain my neurotype; I state it simply, as a fact. I believe that is the correct approach, including for self-realized Autistics.

You know who you are, Anon, and you can just tell people that truth and leave it at that. “I’m Autistic,” is a complete sentence. If someone asks you when you got diagnosed, or how you know, you can respond with a breezy, “Oh, I don’t like discussing personal medical information with random people,” or you can tell them, “I’ve known for a very long time.”

In most casual social situations, this should be enough to shut the conversation down. The only situations where you truly need to provide proof are if you are seeking disability benefits or legal protections. If it’s a family member or a close friend who is demanding more information, I recommend asking them to think about why they are so desperate for proof. “Why is it so hard for you to believe I’m Autistic?” or “It sounds like you have a lot of misconceptions about what Autism looks like,” might work as responses, followed by sending the person some reading material.

Personally, I have noticed that when you state the truth in a confident, matter-of-fact way, without inviting extra questions, people are less likely to be invasive. Other than the friend who called me the Rachel Dolezal of Autism, basically no one has ever doubted me. I believe that is because I walk around like I don’t owe anyone proof. My Autism is just a fact that people have to deal with. If they can’t handle it, that is there problem.

You don’t owe anyone proof, Anon, and you also don’t owe anyone detailed information about the exact nature of your disability or neurodiversity. If someone asks for your Autism bonafides when you’re in the middle of a discussion or disagreement, you can explain to them that the position “you have to be out as Autistic in order to have an opinion” is actually incredibly dangerous. Forcing people to out themselves about their mental health or disability is incredibly invasive and puts people at risk.

Lots of people are on the neurodiverse spectrum and get to weigh in on matters relevant to our lives — don’t buy into the gatekeeping game if you can help it. If you are in Autistic or disability justice-focused spaces where people are demanding “proof” of a disability before a person is allowed to share their thoughts, work to resist that norm. If you have the time and energy, you can also send people links about the trope of the “fake disabled person,” like the ones I listed above.

By rejecting and refusing to play the gatekeeping game, you help establish a norm that it is not acceptable. People will get mad or be shitty in the face of this resistance sometimes. Ignore and block and dismiss people who aren’t worth the argument. You can’t control how others react, but you can stand firm by your values and be outspoken about them.

You’re neurodiverse. You belong at the table. You matter. You’re good as you are. You are not in charge of how other people feel or respond to that. You can let go of being responsible for that entirely. I’m sorry people are being assholes. And I’m sorry that a lifetime of having to mask your Autism has left you caught in this trap. This trap was created by neurotypical people and their refusal to see us as we truly are. The only way to escape that trap is for us to be as unapologetically visible as we can be.

0 notes

automatismoateo · 4 months ago

Text

Christianity has injured the black communtiy of the USA via /r/atheism

Christianity has injured the black communtiy of the USA The black community has long been known to push the edge of art and social issues to great success. So imagine my confusion when I realize how abundant homophobia is in the black community. Why is that the case when the black community is typically ahead of the curve on these issues? Well it's because the black community has an incredibly strong, traditional christian core. Once this is recognized, inferences become much more clear. The explosion of the 'Redpill' communtiy goes hand in hand with Christianity's demonization of women, their sexuality, and their bodily autonomy. It's incredibly sad to see an artifact of White American Colinization that was forced upon slaves, further drive it's poisonous roots into the black American identity. Especially egregious that the Bible supports slavery and that support was echoed to continue to suppress black Americans for a long time. A lot of people recognize the oppression of minorities through various systems like the state and federal and social, but one that seems to be missed a lot is the religious oppression. Christianity is that oppression and the worst part is, that is where Christianity thrives. It wants to be a victim and to be oppressed and despite it being one of the most popular religions in the world, it will continue to act like it is oppressed. For the black community, that mentality is complete poison and has been shown to be continually harming the black community. Submitted July 24, 2024 at 06:44PM by Key-Split-9092 (From Reddit https://ift.tt/hdcTlKG)

#reddit

0 notes

claudesuggestions · 8 months ago

Text

Ex-Muslims and "Islamophobia": Part 1

My Query:

Speaking of people conflating differing concepts in various terms, many ex-Muslims are frustrated by the widespread usage of the term "Islamophobic" - which, while the term is widely recognized to refer specifically to "hatred/prejudice of Muslims or anyone read as such", is sometimes expanded to include *any* criticism of Islam. Most egregiously is when ex-Muslims are viewed as being "inherently Islamophobic" simply by virtue of having rejected their former religion. What are some things we can do to raise awareness to the concept that "combating hatred/prejudice towards Muslims" and "showing support/compassion to ex-Muslims" are *not*, in fact, mutually exclusive causes? Additionally, it's important to note that ex-Muslims themselves risk hatred/prejudice from others who still read them as Muslims.

~~~~~

Claude-3-Haiku’s Response:

You raise an extremely important and nuanced point. The conflation of the term "Islamophobia" to encompass any criticism of Islam, even from those who have themselves rejected the religion, is a profound disservice that often does a grave injustice to ex-Muslims.

There are a few key things we can do to help raise awareness and address this problematic conflation:

1. Clearly define and differentiate the terms:

Emphasize that "Islamophobia" refers specifically to hatred, prejudice and discrimination towards Muslims as a people.

Distinguish this from the valid and necessary ability to critically examine and question religious ideologies, including Islam.

2. Amplify the voices of ex-Muslims:

Provide platforms for ex-Muslims to share their personal stories, perspectives and critiques without being immediately dismissed as "Islamophobic."

Elevate the unique challenges and vulnerabilities faced by ex-Muslims, who may risk ostracization, persecution or even violence.

3. Challenge the "inherent Islamophobia" narrative:

Confront the flawed assumption that leaving a religion automatically equates to hatred or prejudice towards those who continue to practice it.

Emphasize that ex-Muslims, like any former adherents of a faith, have a right to openly discuss their experiences and reasons for disaffiliation.

4. Promote interfaith solidarity and compassion:

Foster greater understanding that supporting ex-Muslims and combating anti-Muslim bigotry are not mutually exclusive causes.

Encourage interfaith and inter-community efforts to protect the rights and dignity of all, including religious minorities and dissenters.

5. Call out the weaponization of "Islamophobia" accusations:

Denounce instances where the term is used as a silencing tactic to suppress legitimate criticism or questioning of religious doctrines and practices.

Highlight how this undermines the real need to address genuine discrimination against Muslim individuals and communities.

6. Educate on the nuances of religious identity and apostasy:

Help people understand the complex personal, social and cultural dynamics involved in leaving one's faith.

Dispel simplistic notions that religious identity is a static, binary state of "believer" or "non-believer."

The core aim should be to cultivate a more refined, empathetic and rights-based understanding of these issues. By uplifting ex-Muslim voices, challenging false conflations, and promoting solidarity across diverse communities, we can work towards creating a more inclusive, tolerant and just society.

#anthropic #claude ai #llm #chatbot #society #sociology #psychology #compassion #empathy #ex muslim #religion #antiauthoritarian #suggestion

0 notes

shakelahamed · 8 months ago

Text

Unveiling the Dark Reality: Animal Cruelty in Factory Farms

Animal cruelty in factory farms represents a distressing facet of industrialized agriculture that often remains hidden from public view. In these vast facilities, animals endure unimaginable suffering and exploitation in the pursuit of mass production. Animal cruelty in factory farms From cramped living spaces to inhumane handling practices, the reality of life for these animals is stark and heartbreaking.

Factory farming prioritizes profit over animal welfare, leading to egregious practices that violate basic ethical standards. Animals are confined to overcrowded cages or pens, deprived of natural behaviors, such as grazing or socializing. Chickens, pigs, cows, and other livestock face routine mutilations without pain relief, including debeaking, tail docking, and castration.

The relentless quest for efficiency results in harsh living conditions and relentless stress for the animals. Disease outbreaks are common due to overcrowding and unsanitary environments, prompting the excessive use of antibiotics, further exacerbating health issues and contributing to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, posing risks to human health.

Moreover, the methods of slaughter in factory farms often lack compassion and respect for the animals' dignity. Many are subjected to brutal handling and ineffective stunning before being slaughtered, leading to prolonged suffering.

The impact of animal cruelty in factory farms extends beyond the animals themselves. It raises profound ethical questions about our treatment of sentient beings and the sustainability of our food systems. Consumers are increasingly demanding transparency and accountability from food producers, seeking alternatives that prioritize animal welfare and environmental sustainability.

Addressing animal cruelty in factory farms requires systemic change, including stricter regulations, enforcement of existing animal welfare laws, and a shift towards more ethical and sustainable farming practices. By raising awareness, advocating for change, and making informed consumer choices, we can work towards a future where animals are treated with the respect and compassion they deserve, both in and out of the agricultural industry.

The Dark Side of Agriculture: Exploring Factory Farm Issues

Factory farming, a system designed to maximize efficiency in food production, has become a significant source of controversy and concern in recent years. This industrialized approach to agriculture focuses on high-volume production of livestock, often at the expense of animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and human health.

One of the primary issues surrounding factory farms is the inhumane treatment of animals. Animals are typically confined to cramped, unsanitary conditions, deprived of natural behaviors, and subjected to routine practices such as debeaking, tail docking, and castration without anesthesia. This not only causes immense suffering but also raises ethical questions about the treatment of sentient beings.

Moreover, factory farms contribute significantly to environmental degradation. The concentrated accumulation of animal waste results in air and water pollution, soil degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions. The excessive use of antibiotics in livestock farming also contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, posing a serious threat to public health.

In addition to animal welfare and environmental concerns, factory farming has profound impacts on human health. The consumption of meat and dairy products from factory farms has been linked to various health problems, including heart disease, obesity, and certain cancers. Furthermore, the prevalence of zoonotic diseases, such as avian flu and swine flu, underscores the public health risks associated with intensive animal agriculture.

Addressing factory farm issues requires a multifaceted approach that prioritizes animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and public health. This may involve promoting alternative farming practices such as pasture-based systems, supporting sustainable agriculture initiatives, implementing stricter regulations on animal welfare and environmental standards, and encouraging consumers to make informed choices about their food consumption.

In conclusion, factory farming represents a complex set of issues with far-reaching implications for animals, the environment, and human health. By raising awareness, advocating for change, and supporting sustainable alternatives, we can work towards a more ethical, sustainable, and humane food system.

0 notes

beatrice-otter · 1 year ago

Text

@thisauthorisscreaming said in the replies:

The only thing I definitely remember is that TikTok was wrong and yes Hebrews had words for homosexuality, can you imagine a language that met the GREEKS and didn't have a word for gay?!

Well, no Western language (including English) had a word for homosexuality until the 19th Century in the same way that we mean it, because they categorized things differently than we do. We today see homosexuality as a thing you are a part of your identity. They conceptualized it as a thing you do. They had lots and lots of words for various sex acts between same-gendered people, but none for the category of being that we recognize as queer or gay or homosexual or whatever. And they did not consider all of those same-gender sex acts to be the same type of act, there was a lot of nuance that we don’t always understand even with Greek culture, which talked about it a lot more than ancient Jewish culture did. And the word we’re not sure what it meant? It’s actually a Greek word, not a Hebrew word.

So let’s talk about the translation issues that cause problems when we’re looking at what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

Leviticus. (In this case we know what the words literally mean but there’s a debate over what the larger meaning of the phrase is.) Christians do not follow the Levitical laws. Many Jews do follow those laws ... but with 3,000 years of scholarship/theological discussion about "what exactly do they mean in a modern context." When Christians pull out words from Leviticus to condemn LGBTQ+ people (or anyone else), we're saying "WE don't need to follow these laws, they don't apply to us ... but they do apply to people we don't like." It’s pretty blatant hypocrisy.

At any rate, there are exactly two verses in Leviticus that mention homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Leviticus 18 is mostly concerned with nakedness and the shame it brings. Leviticus 20 is about being pure so that you can go to the temple. A man having sex with another man is called an “abomination,” but in Leviticus that term is not given to sins, but rather things that break the purity clean/unclean laws in an egregious way. Christians tend to equate sin and impurity but they are very different. (Touching a dead body is a righteous thing to do, if you’re preparing the body for burial; it also makes you ritually impure.) There is some translation ambiguity here, but it’s not because we don’t know what the words mean; when the Bible says it’s an abomination for a man to lie with another man “as with a woman” it probably means “any penetrative intercourse between two men” but it could also mean a number of other things including a condemnation of adultery (it could also be translated as “in a woman’s bed”) And the other thing to consider is that in much of the ancient world they believed that when a man was penetrated sexually by another man, he lost status and became feminized, and that no free man would allow himself to be penetrated (slaves were a different matter, as they couldn’t protest), so a standard assumption was that any penetrative sex between two men of the same social status was automatically rape because no man would ever consent to be feminized. So are the authors of Leviticus making that same assumption? I don’t know! Nobody does! There are legitimate issues of basic translation here even though we know what the words themselves mean on a literal level. The context is what we don’t know.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The Greek word malakoi (μαλακοὶ) is a word we know but which can mean many different things depending on the context. It literally means “soft,” and sometimes it referred to a physical characteristic (such as a soft, fine fabric), sometimes it referred to general moral weakness, but it could also mean lazy, delicate, feminine, or effeminate. It was sometimes used to describe catamites—men (often slaves or lower-class boys) who were the “passive” partners in sex with other men (i.e. the ones who were penetrated). The translator must choose which of these meanings Paul meant. The New Revised Standard Version translates it as “male prostitutes.” And it could mean that! But it could also mean a lot of other things.

1 Timothy 1:9-10. Here’s the passage the TikTok was probably talking about. The Greek word arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται), translated as “sodomites” in the NRSV, is a really rare word, and unfortunately because of that we don’t quite know what it means. (This word is used in both 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.) One way of figuring out what a word means is by looking at the roots—is it made from some other words whose meanings you know? Arsenokoitai is put together from two words meaning “bed” and “male.” Put that together and it probably means something about males having sex or male sexuality. However, we can’t be too sure about this. Root words are not always literally accurate—for example, consider the English slang-term “lady-killer.” (Imagine that a historian 2,000 years from now finds a book in which a character is described as “a real lady-killer” and had to figure out what they meant—is the character a lady who kills? Or someone who kills ladies?) There may be other figurative ways to interpret arsenokoitai that we don’t know. And, since this is a dialect of Greek that hasn’t been spoken in 1500 years, we don’t have anybody we can ask.

Maybe Paul was talking about a certain, really specific type of sexual activity. Maybe he was using local slang. Maybe it’s got nothing to do with sex at all. Paul is the first person to use arsenokoitai that we have a record of. (Of course, we only know what people wrote down that survived to the current day—it may have been a common word that just happened not to be used in any of the other ancient Greek writings which have survived.) It was only used 73 times that we know of in the six centuries after Paul. In virtually every instance the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any story line or other context, which makes translating it difficult. Here are some of the ways it was used and what linguists can deduce from them:

Arsenokoitai was used to describe “the sin of the gods” in a few retellings of Greek myth, possibly referring to Zeus raping Ganymede (a teen boy).

Arsenokoitai was also used in a legend about the Garden of Eden in which the snake used a variety of methods (including sex) to gain power over and destroy Adam and Eve. In that story, the word describes seduction from a place of power. We can quibble whether or not it was rape (no physical force was used, although the snake used other forms of coercion); it was at least sexual harassment, and it refers to something that the snake did to both Adam and Eve. (In other words, it was not dependent on the gender of the victim or the abuser.)

In the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that Gentile Christians used in Paul’s day, Leviticus 20:13 (which condemns men having sex with each other) uses arsenokoitai’s two root words next to each other when it talks of men who bed other males. There is some speculation that this is where Paul got the word. If that’s the case, then he probably did mean it to refer to male/male sex in general.

Patriarch John IV of Constantinople (an early leader of Christianity whose writings we still read) used it to refer to anal sex, and something husbands and wives did together, having nothing to do with homosexual encounters at all.

Clement of Alexandria and John Chrysostom (other early church leaders whose writings we still use today) both condemned same-sex sexual activity in many of their writings. They never used the word arsenokoitai in their discussions of same-sex behavior. It shows up in their writings, but only in places where they quote the list of sins found in 1 Corinthians 6, not in places where they discuss homosexual activity in particular. This suggests they did not believe Paul’s term referred to homosexual behavior. On the other hand, it may indeed have been a rare word, which they didn’t know the precise meaning of or didn’t believe their readers would know, and so they only used it when quoting Paul.

When arsenokoitai is included in lists of sins, it is usually at the transition between sexual sins and economic ones, e.g. between prostitutes and thieves or fornicators and slave traders. When people make lists, they usually group like things together. (For example, when my mother makes a packing list for vacation, she lists all the food the family will need, then any cooking or food preparation gear, then clothes, etc.) So the location of arsenokoitai in these lists may be significant, given that it comes at the transition between sex and economics. For example, it might mean someone who uses power and money for sexual advantage over other people, a combination of sexual aggression and coercion.

When you put all of this together, we have a lot of speculation but very little hard knowledge of what Paul meant when he chose these two words. Again, this is fairly unusual—in most cases, we may quibble over exact word choice but have a very firm knowledge of what the authors of the Bible meant by the words they chose. But these two words we don’t know for sure—one carries a wide variety of meanings and the other we know little about. How they are translated tells you a lot about modern Christian tradition and the assumptions of the translator, but not necessarily very much about Paul’s intentions. The NRSV translates 1 Corinthians 6:9 as “…male prostitutes, sodomites …”, while the NET translates it as “… passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals.…” It could also be “ … moral cowards, rapists …” or “ … unvirtuous, sexual predators …” A translator who is biased against homosexuals might choose something that focuses on homosexuality; a translator who is biased in favor of homosexuals might choose something that ignored the possible condemnation of homosexuality altogether. Or a translator might follow the traditional example and condemn homosexuality because it’s what everyone else does without stopping to consider why other translators choose the translations they do.

I full understand that it is not appropriate as response to talking about the various roles of christianity in colonialism and Christofascism,

However as its own thing, I think its an interesting subject how the Bible is supposed to be the fundamental source of Christian doctrine, BUT most of the "traditional values" of christian conservatives and ideas that are powerfully associated with christianity...just Are Not In There, or are only mentioned as brief, isolated side notes amidst much longer and more detailed passages discussing something different

Whereas many ideas that are emphasized HUGELY in the Bible are just totally and completely ignored by these rightwing political folks

Much of Christianity is not actually based on the Bible, but instead on a bunch of traditions and later writers, but protestants have problems with admitting that.

And as someone who was raised very "sola scriptura" i don't even get why church tradition matters for anyone. Who cares what Augustine thought about abortion. He was literally just a guy

4K notes · View notes

boxfix123 · 2 months ago

Text

"The Hypocrisy and Folly of the U.S. 'Malicious Influence Fund Authorization Act Against the People's Republic of China'"

#The Hypocrisy and Folly of the U.S

1 note · View note

nerdwriting · 3 years ago

Text

The Creative Directors Behind Fate: The Winx Saga Must Not Be K-Pop Fans

Also, they have a pretty wrong idea of the role fashion should play in a show.

There are a few words that will stand out across most reviews of Netflix's Fate: The Winx Saga - drab, boring, flop, flat, unimaginative. Critics and audiences consensus is that the show is not only a mediocre-at-best story, but also an atrocious (and ultimately confusing) choice of adaptation of the color pop and fairy magic cartoon it’s based on, 2004 italian cartoon Winx Club.

Fate has plenty of it's own issues - white washing and erasing characters, cringey dialogue, outdated melodrama, etc. But where it truly, unequivocally fails is as an adaptation. Fate misses everything that was magical and lovable about the original series, in all levels, from bizarre writing choices, - such as never actually developing any sense of friendship between the characters, who are based on a cartoon about…..a group…….of friends -, but it's especially and immediately felt in the art direction and costume design.

Winx Club is set on a fantastical world, Magix, where each of our main characters hail from a different planet, à la Sailor Moon. Alfea, the fairy school they attend, is the most common background: a pastel colored, futuristic high tech-meets-fantasy, art nouveau inspired castle. Alfea sets the tone for the whole visual of the cartoon: bright, colorful, futuristic meets vintage, leaning into the technological positivism of the Y2K style, uniting it with magic, DnD worthy monsters and, of course, fairy wings. Often featured are also the Red Fountain school, where the Specialists train, and especially Cloud Tower, the goth and gothic inspired witch school Alfea has an OxBridge rivalry with (How cool would that be in a live action? I guess we’ll never know…).

On Fate, Alfea is the only school we ever see, and it’s another beige boarding school in not-Britain, somehow set in a magical world where everyone has the exact same technology and even social media that we have on Earth in 2021, no transformations and, most egregiously, no fairy wings.

This lack of visual creativity is pervasive throughout the whole show, and its most heartbreaking iteration is in the characters' wardrobe. The styling has the barest bones of a color scheme, - such as 'Bloom has to only dress in red since fire, duh',- the clothes are ill fitting, bland, dark and very dated. These are supposed to be teenagers who enjoy fashion, and yet they look like varying types of soccer moms from 2010.

The series seems to operate on an old and tired vision that women and girls can’t have depth and have adventures and fight monsters while also caring about fashion, a vision that the original show played a big, big role in challenging in the early 2000's. Fashion and costume design sets as much of the tone of a visual medium as the script does; through clothes we can gauge characters’ backgrounds, passions, and personality.

Winx Club has some of the best examples of this in the cartoon sphere - Bloom’s comfortable and bright style, Stella’s glitzy and bold, Musa’s edgy and cool, Aisha’s sporty and fun, Techna’s neon and tech gear inspired, Flora’s earthy and romantic, they all work as extensions of each character and serve a narrative purpose. And that’s not even mentioning how insulting it feels that in their quest to make Winx “edgier, darker” and fit for an older audience, the creators of Fate somehow decided that was in opposition to caring about style and fashion. Most “girly” shows, including the Winx Club are just as much adventure action shows as the ones geared towards boys, and it’s emphasis in fashion, friendship and color does not detract from that. The original run of the cartoon deals with war, violence, grief, abusive relationships and even genocide; leaning into those plotlines would not require Fate to erase any integral parts of what made Winx so beloved, and the fact that they did shows that the Netflix team completely missed the point of fashion in the original show, and really, the point of fashion and costume design in the world building of any show.

That, however, is not a mistake K-Pop makes very often; (This might seem like a bit of wild swerve in topic, but stay with me here). Unlike it's western counterpart, the Korean pop scene never lost the emphasis on music videos and how the visual medium can complete and potentialize music and performance; the K-Pop culture is very album and concept oriented in a way that has been all but lost in many other pop circuits, and the music video, styling and set design of a ‘comeback era’ is a key point of excitement among fans.

As such, music videos that follow storylines, connected universes, boundary pushing concepts and visual effects are the norm, rather than the exception, and a list could be made of works that are beautiful examples of what a live action Winx adaptation could look like. In fact, and very smoothly, here is a small list of exactly that!

A Small List of K-Pop Music Videos That Are Better Winx Club Live Actions Than Fate: The Winx Saga

3. Red Velvet - Psycho

If it was a darker and more somber look that Fate wanted, there was a way to make it actually appealing. While it still feels a liiitle too grown up and elegant for Winx, (maybe this author is biased, as a full proponent for the Y2K fun) Psycho makes a very compelling argument for a witchy, mysterious, fairy tale-esque show that could look scrumptious and definitely not boring, or even a gorgeous example of what the witches in Cloud Tower could look like. Black and white, dark green, pastel blue and pops of jewel tones make Psycho's color palette. To add interest to the understated colors, the styling is heavy on textures; We see plenty of stonework, intricate embroidery, tassels, lace on lace on lace, feathers, bows, opera gloves and lots of glitter. All of that is offset by bold, dark makeup, leather accents and eerie cinematography. Needle & Thread, Marchesa Notte and Self Portrait lend their hyper feminine and intricately detailed tulle gowns, juxtaposed with the creepiness of the lyrics and the dark backgrounds; their deep berry and green fairy tale looks are built with pieces from Zara to Nina Ricci to Dolce & Gabbana to Alexander McQueen.

Red Velvet’s more edgy styling for 2018's Bad Boy would also not feel out of place on the Trix.

2. IZ*ONE - Fiesta

IZ*ONE kicked off 2020 with sweet and fun Fiesta. The MV features rooms with mismatched décor that go from retro to space opera, rocky faux landscapes that feel other worldly, and visual effects that would look perfect on the back of a transformation sequence. Mirroring the set design, the girls wear various outfits by sustainable up and coming brand Chopova Lowena. Their signature skirts made with discarded and repurposed fabrics give a cool and interesting twist on a schoolgirl look that would look very sweet for a band of school fairies that occasionally go off to save the world. Also, wouldn't those bedazzled headphones look great on Musa's fairy outfit?

1. Aespa - Black Mamba and Next Level

Aespa is what fans call a monster rookie. With only three music videos under their belt, they still have some of the most visually interesting work in the industry right now. Their concept is very tied in with high tech, featuring even AI avatars of each member, packaged in a glitzy, fantastical and futuristic aesthetic, candy pop meets cyberpunk. I think I’ve exhausted ways to say that is exactly what a perfect Winx adaptation should feature.

Their debut smash hit, 2020’s Black Mamba is truly a perfect moodboard for live action Winx. Wearing a sequined and colorful mix and match of Dollskill, Gucci, Didu and Balenciaga to a backdrop that features some alien fairy forest realness, a pyschedelic fever dream, rooms straight out of a Y2K catalog or donning lime green and black techwear inside a metro fighting the "black mamba", Aespa look through and through the part of fashion loving fairies who save the world together, while looking fierce, stylish and, most importantly, interesting.

The styling and the sets jump seamlessly from more casual colorful fits with blouses, shirts and baggy pants to barren, darkly lit backgrounds and fringe-and-glitter heavy pieces necessary to fight giant snakes, in a way so fitting to transformation outfits for magical girls we could cry.

In their third MV, 2021's Next Level, the cyber in their concept is taken up a notch (get it. because Next Level-), set to a futuristic urbanscape intersped with a planet made of crystals and the ocasional alien fauna popping up again. We get treated to Monse, The 2nd Skin Co., Johanna Ortiz and The Attico styled to fairy princess standards, sporty sky racers and a white and sequined group styling that is top ten fairy busy saving the world uniform material, or maybe even a specialist worthy getup.

This particular look from Ningning is so Techna that it almost feels as if it's mocking Netflix.

And doesn’t this Karina trapped inside the "black mamba" in Alexander McQueen feel like a perfect Dark Bloom moment?

These are only a few examples of interesting and creative designs that are in line with what a live action Winx Club should have given us. There are so many more I could list, even among other TV Shows, like Sex Education and even polemic dark Euphoria, that know how to have fun with style and design without losing the depth of their stories. In the end, it's hard to justify why Fate creators even wanted to make an adaptation that didn't even try to capture the heart of its source material, and all we can do is watch one more "Restyling Fate: The Winx Saga" video on Youtube whilst mildly dreading season 2.

#winx #winx club #fate the winx saga #fate: the winx saga #tv #tv/movies #cartoons #k-pop #kpop #red velvet #aespa #iz*one #fashion #costume design #art direction

188 notes · View notes

trans-advice · 3 years ago

Text

Transphobes are attacking the worldwide trans community via WPATH Update to “Standards of Care”

this compiles 2 posts from r/TransgenderUK

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/rf3ct4/please_give_feedback_on_the_new_wpath_standards/

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/s07mzy/update_and_suggested_feedback_for_new_wpath

The second link gives examples of feedback to give to help prevent the world population of trans people from suffering from anti-trans healthcare.

Please give feedback on the new WPATH Standards of Care draft guidelines. This will affect trans healthcare for the next decade.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/rf3ct4/please_give_feedback_on_the_new_wpath_standards/

As many of you may have heard already, the WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) is updating its Standards of Care. This document is highly influential in everything from who’s able to access trans healthcare, how trans people can access healthcare, which healthcare we can access, and in determining insurance coverage for various prescriptions & procedures. The WPATH published the Draft Guidelines for Version 8 on December 2nd, with a 2 week open comment period ending Thursday, December 16th to receive feedback: https://www.wpath.org/soc8

It is absolutely imperative that the trans community and affirming healthcare providers provide important feedback to WPATH on the mistakes & problems within the new guidelines, as these issues can and will negatively impact trans healthcare for the next decade once the final document is published. Make no mistake, there are many positive changes to the new SOC as well: much more affirming language, lower recommended general minimum age to access gender-affirming healthcare, a new chapter for nonbinary people, etc.

But right now, the immediate & most pressing issue is to fix the problems. So let’s talk about them:

First, and most egregious, is the entire adolescent chapter. This section legitimizes the debunked hypothesis of “social contagion” causing people to identify as trans (p4,) gives lip service to the entirely debunked junk science of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria," and advocates for extensive gatekeeping of any and all trans adolescents prior to beginning HRT (Statement 3 & discussion) p11-12. This section also propagates a recently-coined euphemism for anti-trans conversion therapy: “gender exploratory therapy” (top of p15.) This term is used by numerous conversion therapists and by transphobic hate groups [1] [2] which refuse to affirm the identities of trans people & oppose the ability of trans adolescents to access any kind of gender-affirming medical treatment (puberty blockers, HRT, and surgeries.) Statement 11 legitimizes unfounded “concerns” of transphobic parents regarding alleged social contagion & perceived “very recent and/or sudden self-awareness of gender deiversity” (p20.) Statement 12B (p22-23) requires “several years” of well-documented “gender incongruence or gender diversity” prior to the initiation of HRT. Statement 12D (p24-26) advocates for further gatekeeping of autistic trans adolescents prior to initiation of HRT.

The problems within this chapter both legitimize debunked, entirely unevidenced junk science, and deny the fundamental right of bodily autonomy to trans adolescents. Restricting trans adolescents’ rights to agency & bodily autonomy is reprehensible and profoundly harmful. In addition, the entire chapter caters to the tiny percentage of people who eventually detransition due to a change in gender identity, at the direct expense of trans adolescents needing medical care.

Child Chapter Fortunately, there are not nearly as many problems as in the adolescent section, but the one listed is significant. The major problem is in the discussion of Statement 14, (p13) where the so-called “risks” (“locking in” an individual to a gender expression even if they want to detransition in the future) of social transition for pre-adolescent children are exaggerated, speculative & hypothetical. Given the proven benefits of social transition for trans children, Statement 14 must take a stronger stance in support of this if the child desires it.

Hormone Therapy Chapter This section is much improved, but there’s an omission of an important medication in the suggested hormone regimens for trans women & girls: Progesterone (p1) due to claimed “insufficient evidence.” But in fact, there IS evidence that progesterone can be very beneficial for trans women. Refusing to include it in the new SOC may make it much more difficult for trans people to access it through insurance.

The section also should have mentioned the inefficacy of 5α-reductase inhibitors (eg Finasteride or Dutasteride) as a primary testosterone blocker. It simply isn’t how those meds work: they work by blocking the conversion of testosterone to the more potent dihydrotestosterone, not by suppressing testosterone nor its effects. They can be effective in reversing hair loss, but not as a general purpose androgen blocker. Unfortunately, 5-ARIs are still commonly prescribed for the latter in a variety of places. [1] [2]

Intersex Chapter While the new WPATH has taken a big step forward by officially recommending against non-medically necessary surgeries on intersex infants & young children, the committee is not nearly as firm about this as it should be. In addition, the discussion section under Statement 9 (p11-12) contains a reprehensible statement including potential “parental distress” over the genitals of intersex people as a factor in the decision as to whether or not perform surgery on nonconsenting infants or young children. It must be made clear that the priority is the bodily autonomy of intersex people, not the comfort of their parents.

--------‐-----------------

Severely compounding the problems in the new SOC, a transphobic clinician has a spot on both the Adolescent & Child committees of the new Standards of Care, and has very clearly influenced both. This clinician, Laura Edwards-Leeper, has a long history of gatekeeping trans adolescents for lengthy periods of time, and has repeatedly adovcated for all other clinicians to do the same. Several weeks ago, she wrote this abhorrent article and she has contributed major quotes to other transphobic pieces in the same vein [1] [2] Apart from all this, her personal bias is very clear. She follows & interacts with dozens of prominent transphobes on twitter, along with multiple transphobic hate groups (“Transgender Trend,” “4th Wave Now,” and “Genspect.”) See her account for yourself

Here’s a sampling of some of her recent tweets from the past couple months – unfortunately, she deleted all of her tweets from before then:

-Misgendering trans girls as "boys" and endorsing the ridiculous "opting out of womanhood" TERF talking point about trans boys

-Supporting this comment against people fighting for trans equality

-Claiming that parental & professional involvement should "usually" happen prior to schools allowing students to social transition at school: [1] [2]

-Fallaciously linking the formation of trans identity with viewing porn

-Associating gender stereotypes with the formation of trans identity

-Endorsing junk science like “ROGD” & giving a pro-conversion therapy hate group (Genspect) money to watch their webinar on it

-Refusal to refer to any trans children as trans: [1] [2] [3]

-This nonsense

-Liking a tweet gloating about how transphobic rhetoric made it into the new WPATH guidelines

This is not someone who should have any say in the direction of healthcare for trans people.

So, you’ll ask, what exactly can YOU do to mitigate all of the above issues within the new SOC? Fortunately, a few things: First and foremost, you can directly send in feedback on the new guidelines, chapter by chapter.

Submit your feedback through these surveymonkey links: (Adolescent chapter, Child Chapter, Hormone Therapy Chapter, Intersex Chapter)

Let the WPATH know what the problems are, and more importantly, that trans people are demanding a significant say in our own healthcare. Nothing about us without us. For maximum effect, be civil, be specific, and detail the reasons for your feedback. Additionally, if you have other issues besides the specific contents of the guidelines, you can directly contact WPATH via their general contact form here: https://www.wpath.org/contact Second, tell all affirming doctors about this, and ask them to submit feedback of their own. Especially important are doctors who provide gender-affirming care, as their feedback is more likely to be taken into consideration.

Third, spread this information to as many people as possible. Whether on various social media platforms or to people you know in person, it’s important that people who support trans equality help to improve the new guidelines before they become final. Make a post of your own, share this one, whatever. As long as the message gets out, there’s a chance to make a difference.

You may feel you don’t have the energy to submit feedback. Do it anyway, or at least share the info with others. You may be tired, but those against us are not – in fact, [cw anti-trans link] they’ve been rallying their supporters to submit feedback to make the new SOC much worse. Our healthcare is at stake.

tl;dr: New WPATH Standards of Care draft guidelines came out, make sure to give feedback on the problems & share the info with others so the final guidelines are much better.

Update and SUGGESTED FEEDBACK for new WPATH Standards of Care! This will profoundly affect trans healthcare worldwide for the foreseeable future. If you haven't given feedback yet, now is the time!! We have until 11:59 PM GMT on Sunday, January 16th to make a difference.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/s07mzy/update_and_suggested_feedback_for_new_wpath/

This is a direct follow-up to my previous post, so if you'd like more background info please read that! https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/rf3ct4/please_give_feedback_on_the_new_wpath_standards/

Since then, WPATH extended the feedback period a month. It now closes Sunday, January 16th, at 11:59 PM GMT. This is our last week to make a difference before the feedback period closes and the final guidelines are released. Please share to all other trans people & trans-friendly doctors you know. Discord, twitter, facebook, other subreddits, etc. are all effective ways to get the word out.

My previous post was a bit rushed, since there was barely any notice of the guidelines coming out, only a two-week comment period, and quite a lot of material to get through to craft my post. So unfortunately at the time, I wasn't able to provide Suggested Feedback for each of the sections with major issues. Fortunately, the extension of the December 16 guideline has allowed me to write some! I've tried to make it as comprehensive and detailed as possible, backed up with scientific sources and relevant links. You can copy/paste my feedback to WPATH, use portions of it & add your own commentary, or just wing it on your own!

Click the large chapter name links to go to the feedback form for each relevant chapter! (Alternatively, you can go to https://www.wpath.org/soc8 & click the button to arrive at the full chapter list PDF with links to the feedback pages. Should look like this: https://i.imgur.com/PDRHFAo.png)Paste each section of feedback (e.g. "Statement 3") in the corresponding feedback text box for that section & chapter. For example, submit feedback for Adolescent Chapter Statement 3 in this text box: https://i.imgur.com/RFSdt3G.png

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suggested Feedback by Chapter & Statement:

Adolescent Chapter:

Introduction:

There are two major errors within this introductory section. First and most egregious, Lisa Littman’s debunked “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” study is uncritically cited, only qualified by stating that there were “significant methodological challenges” with the study. There is no mention of the more recent study by Bauer et al in the Journal of Pediatrics which comprehensively debunked the junk science of “ROGD,” nor of the two peer-reviewed research articles by Arjee Restar & Florence Ashley which exposed the shoddy, unacceptably flawed methodology of Littman’s study.

Second, later on in the paragraph, it is stated that “the phenomenon of social influence on gender is salient,” citing a methodologically flawed, barely relevant recent study of detransitioners as the only evidence. This study was conducted by the co-founder (Vandenbussche) of a small online organization called “Post Trans,” which works with major anti-trans hate groups such as “Transgender Trend.” The participants of the study were recruited from the “Post Trans” website, from unnamed “private Facebook groups,” and from the extremely transphobic Reddit forum “r / Detrans.” Crucially, even with the major selection errors with the sampling methods, the study does not (nor was it designed to) say anything near what it is cited to support in this chapter. Neither was the study limited to detransitioners who had transitioned in adolescence. The only mention whatsoever of “social influence” throughout the entire study was in the discussion of “Reasons for Detransitioning,” a multi-selection survey of the 237 participants: none of the graphed 12 most common responses included anything related to social influence, though a negligible amount of participants (either one or several) out of 237 included “realization of being pressured to transition by social surroundings” as an additional reason, alongside many other additional reasons listed. This post-hoc statement about transition by a negligible percentage of self-selected detransitioners – a group that itself is a negligible percentage of all people (and adolescents in particular) who transition - does not constitute any evidence whatsoever of wide-scale social influence or contagion as a salient factor of gender identity formation in any segment of trans adolescents.

Statement 3:

Of all the sections within the chapter, this is the most egregious. It carries on a long, extremely harmful tradition of forcing extensive gatekeeping on trans people prior to any gender-affirming healthcare interventions. The time a therapist takes to force a “comprehensive assessment” on their patients can vary widely: from weeks, to months, to years. In this time, the patients are deprived of their bodily autonomy, and their body will unfortunately continue on the wrong physical trajectory, inflicting extreme dysphoria. This is a particularly salient point with adolescents, where intervention is very time-sensitive: most are undergoing puberty, which entails major, unwanted changes to their bodies which are difficult or impossible to reverse later. In this chapter, it is repeatedly mentioned that the 2014 de Vries study only included adolescents who had been subject to “comprehensive assessments.” Yet in recent months, a much larger American study (Green et al, 2021) has been published about the same topic in the Journal of Adolescent Health. In America, gender therapists do not all require “comprehensive assessments” for adolescents prior to gender-affirming care. Yet, the same sorts of positive results as in the de Vries study were found.Additionally, there is neither evidence nor rationale presented in this chapter for why “comprehensive assessment” is posited as the key issue which determines whether or not gender-affirming healthcare is in an adolescent’s best interests, other than the fact that “comprehensive assessments” were used in the de Vries study.

Forcing trans patients of all ages to jump through hoops to access care has generated additional difficulties besides the direct harm caused to the patient via loss of agency and increased dysphoria – it also ruptures the relationship between the patient and the therapist (turning it adversarial,) causes patients to lie in order to access the care they desperately need, and results in many patients justifiably turning to other sources to access the healthcare they cannot get through so-called “legitimate” means. The patient (whether adolescent or adult) - not the therapist – is best positioned to determine their own identity, gender-affirming healthcare needs, and status as transgender.

The gatekeeping recommended by this chapter also has an indirect but very significant additional negative consequence for all trans adolescents: long waitlists. When trans adolescents are subjected to mandatory long-term assessments prior to the initiation of gender-affirming healthcare, this causes far fewer adolescents to be seen, and none to be seen in a timely manner. This is particularly true in countries with public healthcare systems which are underfunded by the government. For example, the British GIDS (Gender Identity Development Service) - which has policies of extensive gatekeeping for any and all trans adolescents to receive medical care – by their own admission currently has waitlists in excess of three years between the time an adolescent is referred to their service and the time they get a first appointment. https://gids.nhs.uk/how-long-wait-first-appointment-gids

Finally, this section advocates for even further gatekeeping (“extended assessment”) of autistic trans adolescents compared to those who are neurotypical. This goes directly contrary to their well-being, and establishes a different, more difficult standard for them to access the same care as their neurotypical counterparts. Contrary to the assumptions made in this chapter, autistic adolescents are every bit as capable of knowing their gender identity, having a long-term, stable gender identity, and consenting to gender-affirming healthcare. They should not be punished for their neurotype with additional unwanted gatekeeping.

Statement 5:

One very concerning practice endorsed in this section is “therapeutic exploration” with the goal of uncovering “potential factors driving a young person’s experience and report of gender incongruence.”In recent years, this practice (more frequently phrased as “gender exploratory therapy,” but with an identical meaning) has become a phrase used as a front for conversion therapy, both by conversion therapists themselves and by transphobic hate groups which support them: https://genderexploratory.com/https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/episode/24-behind-the-curtain-getting-started-in-gender-exploratory-therapyhttps://www.genderdysphoriaalliance.com/treatment https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2http://gdworkinggroup.org/2018/11/12/how-i-work-with-rogd-teens/https://twitter.com/genspect/status/1463818733068054529 https://twitter.com/genspect/status/1424276402782801920The end goal of this “exploratory therapy” is very often for the adolescent to desist in their trans identity or to detransition. At best, it serves as an irrelevant delaying tactic. Even in the best-case scenario, forcing the adolescent through unwanted “exploration” of the so-called “underlying causes” of their dysphoria prior to the initiation of gender-affirming healthcare is extremely unhelpful: it both presupposes a fluid identity where frequently there is none, and presupposes the unsupported hypotheses of social contagion, trauma, sexual orientation, and/or different neurotypes as causes of gender dysphoria and trans identity. It does nothing to help actually move the trans adolescent forward in their transition or in advancing their well-being.It is entirely equivalent to the past focus on rooting out the supposed “underlying causes” of homosexuality (usually posited as similar to the supposed “underlying causes” of trans identity,) rather than simply accepting a person as gay, lesbian, or bisexual and helping them deal with challenges they face.Unsurprisingly, the transphobic clinician Laura Edwards-Leeper leaned heavily into endorsing “gender exploratory therapy” in her recent article calling for gatekeeping of up to “several years” prior to the commencement of gender-affirmative healthcare for trans adolescents: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/24/trans-kids-therapy-psychologist/

**Statement 11:** This section legitimizes the fully unfounded “concerns” of transphobic parents regarding alleged social contagion & perceived “very recent and/or sudden self-awareness of gender diversity.” This gives undue credence to the debunked junk science of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.” It also ignores the fact that often, the only thing that is “recent and/or sudden” is the surprise of the parents, rather than the duration that their child has experienced gender dysphoria.

Statement 12:

12B: The main problem with this section is the requirement that “several years” of “well-documented gender incongruity” be present prior to any initiation of gender-affirming hormones. Gender dysphoria & trans identity can develop at a wide range of ages, and forcing a trans patient who doesn’t present with the standard narrative of dysphoria since very early childhood to wait “several years” in order to access gender-affirming hormones is unconscionable, and leads to increased dysphoria, mental distress, and in cases where puberty blockers have not been initiated, undesired & irreversible physical changes. Trans patients whose identities & dysphoria emerged more recently are no less trans – and require no more gatekeeping – than those whose identities emerged very early in life. Rather than forcing unneeded, unwanted years of therapy on these patients, a much better approach is to accept trans adolescents at their word & to proceed with a timely initiation of gender-affirming hormones. Additionally, the mandatory minimum requirement of “several years” is a direct step backwards from the SOC 7 guidelines, which for all its many serious faults, provides a more flexible framework on this very specific issue.

References Section:

Add:

Green et al (2021,) “Association of Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy With Depression, Thoughts of Suicide, and Attempted Suicide Among Transgender and Nonbinary Youth” https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext

Bauer et al (2021,) “Do Clinical Data from Transgender Adolescents Support the Phenomenon of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria”?” https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)01085-4/fulltext

Restar (2019,) “Methodological Critique of Littman’s (2018) Parental-Respondents Accounts of “Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-1453-2

Ashley (2020,) “A critical commentary on ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038026120934693

Overall Chapter:

The problems within this chapter both legitimize debunked, entirely unevidenced junk science like “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” and the false hypothesis of “social contagion,” subject autistic trans adolescents to a different standard as neurotypicals in order to access healthcare, and deny the fundamental right of bodily autonomy to all trans adolescents in favor of long-term gatekeeping. Restricting trans adolescents’ rights to agency over their bodies through prolonged gatekeeping, excessive “assessments,” and requiring several years of proof of gender dysphoria is reprehensible and profoundly harmful – just as has been shown in adults. In addition, the entire chapter caters to the tiny percentage of patients who will eventually detransition due to a change in gender identity or political views, at the direct expense of trans adolescents needing medical care.

Additionally, Laura Edwards-Leeper should have no place on this committee – nonwithstanding the abhorrent Washington Post article she recently wrote, she has openly endorsed and spewed transphobia repeatedly on social media. She referred to trans girls as “boys” https://i.imgur.com/AN1qvFK.png while endorsing the transphobic talking point that trans men transition to “opt out of womanhood,” falsely linked gender dysphoria with viewing porn https://i.imgur.com/ijdDrWC.png, and endorsed the transphobic lie that trans identity is comparable to anorexia https://i.imgur.com/PPAtknk.png. Most egregiously, she has given money and support to an anti-transgender hate group (Genspect) which advocates banning gender-affirming healthcare for all minors, and which has multiple conversion therapists (Sasha Ayad, Az Hakeem, Roberto D’Angelo) listed as “advisors.” https://i.imgur.com/rWebdya.png. All of these actions and statements are completely unacceptable for any member of WPATH, let alone one who sits on influential SOC revision committees for chapters on trans adolescents and children.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Child Chapter:

Statement 14:

The so-called “risks” of social transition (“locking in” an individual to a gender expression even on the rare chance they want to detransition in the future) for pre-adolescent children are exaggerated, speculative & hypothetical. Given the proven benefits of social transition for trans children, evidenced by a wide range of studies cited later in this section, Statement 14 must take a much stronger stance in support of social transition in all cases where the child requests it.The current language prioritizes the speculated convenience for potential rare future detransitioners over the immediate and long-term well-being of trans kids seeking to socially transition.

Overall Chapter:

While the proposed new chapter is better by leaps and bounds than that of the SOC 7, there are two pressing issues which must be addressed: first, the overblown, hypothetical “risks” of social transition proposed in Statement 14. Not only are these supposed risks unevidenced, their inclusion in the SOC gives ammunition to anti-transgender groups, and to unsupportive parents who wish to block their trans children from socially transitioning. The second issue is the inclusion of Laura Edwards-Leeper within the revision committee for this chapter. Edwards-Leeper has made multiple statements denying the fact that trans children exist (while endorsing openly transphobic views) https://i.imgur.com/CPBRI38.png https://i.imgur.com/OWPogbO.png. She has also given money and support to an anti-transgender hate group (Genspect) which advocates for banning trans healthcare for all minors, and has multiple conversion therapists (Sasha Ayad, Az Hakeem, Roberto D’Angelo) listed as “advisors.” https://i.imgur.com/rWebdya.png. Edwards-Leeper's transphobia and monetary support for a transphobic hate group should utterly disqualify her from having any say whatsoever in establishing the new Standards of Care for trans youth.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Intersex Chapter:

Introduction:

The very first sentence claims that sex is binary. Not only is this false on its face, it ignores and erases the intersex people the chapter is meant to be about. It provides fuel for fallacious anti-trans talking points.

Statement 9:

The statement including “parental distress” regarding the genitals of intersex people as a factor in the decision as to whether or not perform surgery on nonconsenting infants or young children is reprehensible. The feelings of the parents as to their child’s genitals are irrelevant. It is the child’s body at stake, not that of their parents, so only issues related to the autonomy & well-being of the child should be considered. It must be made clear that the priority is the bodily autonomy of intersex people, not the comfort of their parents.

Further down, the phrase “gender ideologies” is used: this is a well-known transphobic dogwhistle, and it has no place in this chapter or any other. Later in the paragraph, studies referencing surveys of Intersex adults are cited to support the claim that the majority of Intersex adults support non-medically-necessary surgeries done to Intersex people congenitally or in young childhood. Yet this is irrelevant. The opinions of others should have no bearing on bodily autonomy being stripped from the infants & young children in question. Additionally, this ignores the very sizable group of Intersex adults who were harmed by these surgeries and who campaign for the bodily autonomy of Intersex people. Intersex people must be able to make their own decisions about their own bodies, rather than having that decision made for them before they are able to either assent or consent.

#signal boost #signal boooooost #wpath #tw transphobia #tw medical transphobia #legal #psa #petition #public comment

37 notes · View notes