If you have ever attempted to change your name you know it is way more annoying to change your name than accept someone else’s change of name. The amount of admin it takes to make that update in your social circle even before you try and make it legal is a test of social fortitude and willpower.

Remember when someone is changing their name they are very aware of the imposition of the mental load they are placing on you. Grace goes a long way.

Not quite. The Conservative party mostly put their money on a bunch of culture war stuff and were aiming to defang a bunch of regulatory bodies. Carney is basically an Old School conservative who is trying to appeal to the conservative votership who ditched the actual Conservative party by pulling a bunch of moves that flatter areas that are dependant on oil so he can compete with what are essentially American psy-ops to goad Canadian resource heavy provinces into making policy which favours private American business.

He’s trying to be a unifying force since most of the country was going to vote blue and the political situation with the states requires a lot of solidarity. He is basically a fiscal conservative Monarchist wet dream while keeping quiet on not rolling back Progressive social agendas of yesteryear. So… Lesser of two evils mostly.

It’s not just family and upbringing it’s kind of enforced by basically everyone a little bit. House is a mess - oh (fem partner) must be struggling poor dear. The state of the house just sits in a corner of their mind all day everyday like a weight dragging them down like the telltale heart.

Once you see the effect of it you can’t really unsee it.

No kidding. The enforcement is often kind of brutal too. As a couple the house not being clean creates a pervasive sense of judgement that falls on the feminine half of a couple. It doesn’t matter if they are a killer breadwinner with an amazing career and winning at life the messaging and conditioning from childhood and enforced by older friends and relatives is still that they are at their core a failure if their house doesn’t meet regulation. That judgement is not extended to the masculine partner because he’s kind of expected to be a hapless subordinate who maybe helps but is not responsible for it. That old “sorry about the state of the place” is practically just begging for social leniency from deeply ingrained shame.

If your fem partner is neurotic about cleanliness that’s basically why. They are made to feel horrible about themselves when company comes calling.

I did not call Americans morons nor was my intention to tell you what to do to solve the problem. I simply told you why there isn’t more help coming from the outside. It’s not a matter of people deliberately sitting on their hands.

Unless American leadership breaks the International rules enough to get the sign on of multiple countries to work in concert against America in a world war you are on your own because of rules designed to allow countries to self govern. Other countries cannot alter another country’s government for good or for ill. This is not an indictment of the voting habits or a rebuke of the process of citizen power the American public.

Whether you or any other country solve your problem democratically or through violent collapse the world is handcuffed. There are civil wars going on right now in other countries and the rules are the same for them as they are for you. The world will recognize whatever government is effectively in power once the dust settles but outsiders cannot lawfully tip the scale and go kingmaking unless one side of the conflict violates the rules of war. War itself is not internationally illegal. The US falling into a full on civil war is kosher from an international law standpoint.

The USA has a historic tendency to ignore that international legality and go kingmaking themselves utilizing the resource of spies and subterfuge ONLY because they are singularly powerful enough on the world stage to get away with it. America essentially declared itself a world police force and the sheer infrastructure they have worldwide means that no individual country can compete. Look for yourself how many bases America has on foreign soil compared to every other country. How many armaments and millitary force and how, their ethics policies of their intelligence agencies differ. America is singularly unique. It may be why you believe the rest of the world will help you “fix” things but that’s not in the interests of the rest of the world.

Foriegn leaders are “standing up to America” but they are doing so by cutting themselves free of American coercion for the security and benefit of their own citizens. By framing America out of the picture and moving reliance to other countries and letting America starve itself once the supply chain contracts and treaties expire they will decrease American influence on world policy. It doesn’t benifit those countries to try and swoop in and shore up a crumbling empire which has held guns to their heads for generations. International help currently isn’t coming for American citizens. Unless your country fixes it’s problems itself fairly soon the “standing up to America” that is happening will level your economy and diplomatic power as other governments profit from the diminishing of American hard power that will continue for decades.

Believing that someone is or should be coming to your rescue may not be in your best interest. Not when so many stand to gain long term from your division.

The word in trans communities for this is “ew-phoria”. Calling it a fetish is also kind of… Not great. Fetishes are tied into sexual gratification and gender euphoria /dysphoria is an independent mechanism that ties more closely with identity. It doesn’t make trans people horny and the idea that that’s what is what is happening is used often to trivialize trans experiences.

Think of the typical nature of being cis as (mostly) ascribing no value to sexually dimorphic physical features. Like you can have feelings about whether those things are attractive and the validation you receive for meeting a social standard but that’s an external reinforcement system working its way inward.

Being trans is the opposite. Every sexual characteristic is not value neutral. Perceiving sex characteristics in relation to yourself either makes you feel amazing like someone has shot dopamine directly into your soul or bad like you are not actually a human. All forms of perception of these characteristics causes this effect and it is automatic and instant. Logically even if you believe these things should be valueless, obtainable by all genders if you have this feedback system you don’t get to decide on how or what these things make you feel or in what proportion. The source of the feedback is entirely internal which is why it is often is at complete odds with external systems of validation and if you tried to logically explain it or lessen these feelings with logic you often just can’t. The heart doesn’t only want what the heart wants the heart has a shock collar on you.

In the case of facial hair particularly because it’s not something you have to experience with your eyes to know it’s there touch is fundamentally important. Remember dysphoria is more than being strictly about being perceived by others it is about being perceived by yourself. Other people looking at you and using your pronouns is just another way of perception of yourself. Like other people performing the job of being a mirror. Experiencing your own body however is in things like how you move, what bits of your body bump into things, your height, your weight distribution. Imagine if everytime you touch your face the slight scratch of the existence of thicker hair caused your neurological system to fire depression meds directly into your system. That’s what’s happening. Touch perception.

Sometimes this internal reward systems finds things about a social portion of experience that people that sucks really bad but because it equates to other people reacting to your body’s sexually dimorphic characteristics when it happens to them it hits the same feel good button of other positive external recognition by a third party of having those sex characteristics.

So even while you experience the massive illogical dopamine hit from the internal reward system you can recognize logically at the same time that the phenomenon causing the reaction is a societal problem that is bad and should not exist.

Hence Ew-phoria.

Because that would require either a terrorist action or a bunch of Internationally illegal tampering with American Democracy or declaring war against the World power with the the largest standing army and deepest pockets for arsonal. The rest of the world is effectively held hostage while Americans solve their own problems.

It’s the reason why a lot of bad people in power stay in power. There can be tariffs and sanctions and all manner or soft power deals but the rules are rules. Sovereignty and a right to run your country mostly the way you want is protected as a right and and the US used its positioning as the least devastated megapower/millitary supremacy post WWII to basically bend the world over and get a lot of acceptions to a lot of rules.

Okay. Can we take a minute to just acknowledge that this comment has a little neurotypical ableism and regional bias? Some people literally need more context than others do to understand the tone of a text. Just because you do not need that assistance with context clues in play doesn’t mean everyone also doesn’t need that.

Kindness and extending a little help costs us so little.

Honestly, from most of my experience in dealing with fox news poisoned people who are not total wastes irl : pedophillia is an actual hard line. Most of them have this fantasy of if they found a child predator that they would beat their face in. It is the act inexcusable.

They also are quite fond of the language of conspiracy theories and just the implication has gotten some of them to start thinking.

Will actual hard proof and just hearsay of not just Trump but a number of his people hit some of them like a truck? Yes. Will it sway every Republican? No. But considering how much of their power is based off the Evengelical idea that they are morally on high I would expect a shockwave. His support is already diminishing but add in the firey rage of having a known pedo in that holy of holy offices valued so intensely by the American-supremacists of the crowd and some frozen gears will start moving and every little bit helps.

A lot of folk are going to start going on about how one refers to sexual phenotype and one is about social gender but that isn’t coming from the trans camp. I will help simplify it from a trans lens.

Male and Man are basically interchangeable from a trans perspective because people use them basically the same way - as a social Category. Calling a trans woman “male” is doing the exact same job as calling her a “man”. These are not strictly scientific terms.

Male and Female are what are on legal documentation like licences or medical documents and you can get those changed and it’s important to have that flexibility because a trans man rocking a full beard and having an F sex marker on his passport can get him routinely flagged by police or security with the concern his documentation is fake or erroneous and potentially cause him to be treated like a criminal and his documents tested because he doesn’t look female.

Where the difference culturally matters is people sometimes do not like male or female in usage because it sounds depersonalizing. Like you are putting out an All Points Bulletin or talking about a prisoner or animal population or using medical sounding language to refer to them.

Marriage makes locktight a lot of “privileges” that matter. Your “roommate” of several years can be denied a place at your bedside when you or the child you are raising together are dying. In regards to kids a lot of joint non-married/divorced mixed sex custody is held on the name placed on birth certificates… but same sex couples will have only one name on that certificate. Marriage is super important in a queer context for making sure you are able to participate in your childrens lives.

In the same way a lack of formal marriage can make your next of kin parents who do not “agree with your lifestyle” make critical health decisions on your behalf. They can stick your partner in hellish limbo spaces with banks if you die and you didn’t make a will leaving you without support of pre existing programs or survivor benefits. A bunch of legal doors can close meaning you are more easily separated from your nearest and dearest when traveling, emigrating, interfacing with the criminal justice and court system. Queer marriage is a legal sheild that protects the pair of you in many ways more than straight couples because it stops a lot of institutional bias that dismisses your relationship as potentially not relevant to the authorities who gatekeep access.

Look beyond the meme my friend. When you exclusively start talking about the science of the matter or taking it to mean that the responsibility should be exclusively shifted to men you are ignoring a generation ls deep frustration pregnancy capable people have been experiencing on this subject. You end up implying through negative space that this is a responsibility that should stay in the camp of women- and women have been more under attack for their reproductive choices.

Women’s frustration with the attitudes of men wanting to control their bodies is valid. What this person is doing is returning a little of that. What other women in these comments are seeing is men react like you are here and that sends an unconscious message that the underlying problem is not one that is going to be addressed because unless the problems they are routinely subjected to specifically targets men, men won’t care.

Just because someone gives you a certain energy doesn’t mean you should add to it or return it. Intended or not you start making yourself look like an enemy. Sometimes you have to see beyond the conversation being had and realize to what use your commentary is being put. You are falling into the hands of the poster by being made to look like the worst sort of man.

Okay… so? We’re supposed to feed into this premise by making seem like how women’s birth control is more nessisary and softly validate the idea that men don’t care and can’t be bothered? There’s not an unfair stereotype out there that there’s a lot of men being very callous about not wanting to take any measure to protect their partner if it inconveniences them too much while female hormonal birth control is known to have a bunch of horrible side effects that their relationships just expect them to take on so both partners can have fun.

Under those conditions it does not to me feel unreasonable that women get embittered by having to behave like all the unfair sacrifice for making sex safe enough to participate in is falling on female shoulders at present. Feelings don’t care about facts and strictly debating the scientific difficulty of the task is missing the point where the feelings that create this sort of post are coming from.

Barrier protections are great - but have one of the highest perfect use condition failure rates against pregnancy. If you used them under perfect condition correctly every time there’s still a 2% chance of failure every time…

Typical use however like, people hurrying, using bad technique of application or removal, improper sizing, not inspecting them before use or using expired product or other sundry defects of the condoms themselves means condom’s real life failure rate condition is about 18%.

Not to knock the condom but it’s not foolproof. Even paired up with the pill which has a decent track record when under perfect use conditions but one of the highest rates of imperfect use because of missed or improperly timed doses you still are rolling the dice.

Let’s lay some ttrpgs here. Everytime you have sex under that pairing it’s like you are rolling two individual dice. Let’s take the typical use of condoms and the pill. Roll a six sided die to represent the condom and a 10 sided die for the pill. If both die show up with a 1 then you get a pregnancy. Not bad odds until you realize this is repeated every time you have sex.

Adding another die to the equation in the form of a hormonal birth control for the other partner alters the chances to be more airtight. Also sometimes you as the male partner might want assurance because you generally don’t know of your partner is taking their pills right.

Counterpoint to your counterpoint- no form of birth control has a zero percent failure rate under perfect use conditions and not all women respond to all forms of birth control well meaning pregnancy capable people cannot take perfect control of their family planning choices without the extreme surgical intervention of a hysterectomy as even getting medically sterilized in other ways can potentially undo itself. Doubling up from both sides means a much lower chance of failure rate resulting in life changing or difficult consequences and distress on behalf of the partner who faces higher risk outcomes.

Doing your part in a relationship’s reproductive planning is good partner behavior. This shouldn’t be a game where just one person is on the hook and the other is just along for the ride. Male and Female birth control do not exist as a one or the other dichotomy. Stoking division of the sexes over which one is more nessisary is counter to the real point. These are tools couples can use together to be safer.

Hey, non-binary person in one of the most trans places on the planet. I have in the past 8 years of Pride events and non-binary meetups met only about three people who ever attempted to use a neo-pronoun and only one memorable person who wanted to be called “puppy”. They were like 16 and by the time they were 20 they’d cringe at their past behaviour.

Some people are weird. Particularly when they are on the internet. They are usually young and most of them would make it through maybe an irl day being called “dragon rider” before the effort it takes to keep that up would wear them down.

I think there is more to the word choice of Conservative rhetoric that is more insidious than I think we give creedence. It underlies a misconception spread through the right wing that trans people veiw their situation as primarily metaphysical. Like we have an essence or soul that is at odds with our physical bodies. When they talk about “gender ideology” they aren’t talking about theory - they are talking religion. They took the slogans used to reduce a fairly complex situation into an understandable entry point for people who do not experience anything like transness and elaborate that into the entirety of the stance.

"Trans women are women… " and “X living in an X body” are examples of this at work. They take this as it’s most literal interpretation. “trans women are” becomes That trans people believe that they are physically indistinguishable from their cis counterparts - they render this as a delusion rather than the reality - that trans people are reacting to their physically observae original sexual phenotype and are utilizing social engineering to not be reminded of their physical bodies all the damn time.

The warped lens creates a concept of transness that most people would find completely wackadoo because it isn’t based on anything solid. The average cis person does not experience an innate internal gender preference. For example a cis man of this type does not specifically ride or die on riding around in the body of a man. He might care about being perceived as attractive or fulfilling his cultural role as one thereby smoothing his way through society and social expectation but if he were asked how he would feel if he woke up in the body of woman there’s not a reaction of horror or loss. Perhaps there’s a reaction of novelty and curiousity but not that this is a change of self. There is a flexibility present there which trans people and a minorty of cis people lack. Appealing to the typical cis man’s internal sense of “maness” isn’t going to work. That’s applying an incompatible trans person’s framework to a cis person’s experience and the two do not resemble each other closely enough.

Since this vast majority do not ascribe value to the sexual dymorphic aspects of their bodies and have zero reference point of any internalized preference misrepresenting a very reliable innate reaction to perceivable stimuli as a delusion or a religion has been an incredibly useful tactic and when someone uses the term “gender ideology” it is worthwhile stopping them and asking what they actually mean and combat this misconception directly.

I imagine the closest we are gunna get modern wise is Ostrich meat which tastes like the midway point between chicken and beef.

Yeah “Liberal” as an insult from a Conservative from the leftist perspective is very funny and also sad. Conservatives often utilize the wrong terms for things which muddy the waters and make it harder for their flock to swap sides because messing around with diction makes following leftist discussion impossible if you have an understanding of the terms gleaned from a non-academic source.

Take the term “neo-liberal” the right uses it in its most literal translation to mean “new liberal” and uses it to evoke the far end of the progressive spectrum of the left.

In actuality the term was coined in the Reagan/Thatcher era to mean the sort of generally conservative policy of privatizing swaths of government services entirely, defunding government social programs, removing regulations/ depowering regulatory bodies and practicing so called “trickle down economics” policies. The philosophical term is frozen in time just the same way terms like “neolithic” or “neoclassical art” is. Republicans are literally more Neo-Liberal than the Democrats (who are sort of more passively status quo preserving liberal. Neo-liberal mostly by virtue of inaction. )

Linguistically the well is very poisoned. The left wing could try adopting new terms but the right wing is faster to disseminate their counter to that by just creating new bastardized meanings of the terms because the right has a more unified media structure. The left is fractured. It deals often with trying new things rather than preserving status quo which means it exists in a lot of subgroups.

Liberal is sort of two separate things - a brand adopted by usually a party that markets itself as socially progressive and a philosophy of property forward law that creates a punch out of individual rights to citizens (and to a much lesser extent subgroups) to things like freedom of movement, freedom from unlawful seizure of property, freedom of expression and “style of life”.

If you have existed on the outside of the left wing you might only be familiar with the brand aspect. The criticism of the wider left in general of these “Liberal” branded parties is that they are often performative in their progressive nature. The brand is just marketing.

The hotbutton discussion however inside the wider left in regards to the political philosophy of Libralism is that both the Republicans and Democrats are by technical definition Liberals and that base philosophy has within it the political prerogative of constantly upholding protections on keeping the absurd aggregation of wealth in private firms (something Libralism at it’s core is designed to do). A large number of different leftist philosophies see this as a core problem. Therefore in leftist spaces self identifying Liberals are usually flagged as dupes of a branded center-right party - not as progressives who support social causes of wider acceptance.

Libralism as a philosophy is kind of the air we breathe. It’s not left nor right. It creates a body of individual rights but Capitalism is used as a measure of what constitutes personal autonomy. Someone dying from a lack of success is acceptable because at it’s core Liberalism is designed to coerce (most) people to perform perpetual labour in return for protection inside the system. The system creates classes of people who are citizens who are protected and by doing so it creates exceptions to citizenhood (like prisoners, refugees, immigrants or indigenous peoples) who can be exploited.

Most Democracies are philosophically a sort of blended patchwork of Liberalism and Socialism with some other stuff mixed in. The two are either compatible or opposing depending on which school of Socialism you are talking about.