So it’s whoever decided to make Easter the first Sunday after the first Saturday after the first full moon after the spring equinox’s fault, this year.
This is hilarious, but also: how could anyone develop such a tool and not at least test it out on their own images? Someone with a public persona no less! Boggles my mind.
I mean, I bet they did, but you can’t test it with all the photos ever taken of you. Someone probably tried dozens of photos to get this result. Which, to be clear, I admire.
They did, they know it doesn’t work, but they are already too far down in the money hole. Gotta grift and bullshit and spread bigotry until they make back the money.
The false result is from some unrelated gender detection tool that has nothing to do with the app. Nothing here indicates the actual app makes the same error.
The post is basically saying “this thing doesn’t work because I tried something else and it didn’t work”.
So, uh, she’s a Christian and doesn’t know Easter comes on different dates every year? And that the 31st comes on a different day of the week every year?
It is called Pascha(in greek/latin). It is only called Easter in english and german, but Pascha is the OG term. Pascha is used in the majority of european languages, including germanic ones like swedish, danish and norwegian.
Could be analysing 4 band imagery with an NIR layer. But then that usually comes from satellite imagery so it would make identifying gender challenging. I’d struggle with just a grainy image of the top of someone’s head, even if I knew how warm it was.
I am 51, bi, and to this day I am not comfortable discussing my sexuality. I don’t think young people understand how different things are now when compared to just fifteen years ago.
Yeah, I’m in my 30s and I remember how wildly different it was when I was young. There’s still a lot to be done but seeing the general shift toward acceptance is nice (where I am at least).
It’s odd how much things change and how much they stay the same. An interesting, difficult to notice language shift amongst kids is the complete absence of context for some pejorative uses of “gay.” For instance, the catchall rejection “no way, that’s gay” would elicit confusion first and possibly indignation after. However, other pejorative uses of “gay” still exist, for instance conflating homosexuality with femininity, with femininity having a negative connotation. It’s a partial extinction of meaning and I kinda love it.
All of that to say, the future is looking up in select ways and I’m all about those minuscule victories.
I came out when I was 14 - 26 years ago (albeit as bisexual, because I didn’t know the right words yet) and I felt safe enough to do it because I knew my parents would be supportive, but in the broader world, what I mostly got was, “you’re saying that for attention,” and a lot of gross comments from teenage boys, and that was far less awful than what queer boys got, if they were even able to be out. And then Matthew Shepard was killed the next year a couple of hours from where I lived and it was like oh fuck, maybe I’ll just stick to boys because it’s not as safe as I thought.
I know kids aren’t always safe now, either, and no one in the LGBTQ+ community is safe in many parts of the world, but it really is so different already. We just have to make sure they know how much better it is, and how much better it still could be, and don’t get complacent, because we could be back to hiding the love(s) of our lives very quickly.
Everything that wasn’t Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris, et all, was considered effeminate: “gay”. Using words like “effeminate “: “gay”. Guys piercing anything other than their left ear: “gay”. Not being cool: “gay”.
Yep. I lived as a teenager through that era. It was all pervasive on the male identity.
If you go through my posting history, you’ll see that I know a guy who is my age who is still stuck in that mindset. He’s 53, but still likes to brag aobut fistfights in his 20’s, and presents this “I’m the most Badass who ever Badassed in history” persona that was normal at the time. It’s like he’s still 15 in his mind, which he certainly is. It’s pathetic.
He also still thinks Hair Metal is the best music ever made, Steven Seagal is a badass, and everything in life can be broken down into the dichotomy of it’s either BADASS or PUSSY. It’s interesting if it wasn’t so annoying, and obnoxious. I used to feel sorry for the guy, but over time learned it’s just malignant narcissism and psychopathy. It’s a good thing he’s mostly all mouth, or he would’ve been at Charlottesville or the Capitol on Jan 6. It wouldn’t surprise me if he eventually shot some place up, because of the “Blue Haired Feminazis and the Libcucks.” Because Fox, Matt Walsh, and Ben Shapiro told him what to think.
I am gay. I have a gay friend who uses that term in a “taking it back” sense.
I love my friend and respect him but it hurts so bad it’s to hear that. It’s honestly triggering to me because it reminds me of middle and high school.
I wish he wouldn’t use that term but maybe it is okay if we really are taking it back.
I have talked to some elder gays who seem to feel the same way about other terms like “lesbian” so maybe it really is a generational aversion to the slur of the time.
I don’t like feeling genuinely upset but I am willing to endure it if it means progression for LGBTQIA+ ppl.
Anyone who has a thought about this pls reply. Would really love to hear non-straight folks opinions on it, but even willing to hear straight folks opinions as long as they are respectful and non-violent. ♥️
I feel like it’s been taken back for a while already. A gay community in the states has a dance party they call “f@g bash” which made me wince the first time I heard it. But if anyone has a problem with it I haven’t heard about it and it’s been ongoing for several years.
Younger person here. I don’t like the word lesbian. The only reason we don’t say “gay woman” is that a bunch of old farts didn’t think women could really be gay. It’s misogynistic. TERFs have been using the word to enact violence on trans women and as far as I’m concerned they can have it. Let it be a symbol of misogynistic transphobes. The discourse over bi lesbians is intolerable too, the generation Z lesbians on Shitter don’t know the history of the word and exclude bi women just to be assholes.
Queer person checking in. I too dislike the F-slur because like you say, it takes me back to the worst periods of my life when that was the worst thing you could call a person.
When I was a kid, the common way to express that you didn’t like something was to call it gay. And usually it had nothing to do with gayness either, it’d be like “You signed up for soccer instead of hockey? That’s pretty gay.” “Math class is gay.” “Homework is gay.”
Even before I knew I was queer that bothered me. And the funny thing was if you called someone out for it, they’d weasel out of it by saying they didn’t have anything against gay people, you just call things gay if you don’t like them. They just didn’t see how that was wrong which made it even more frustrating to me. Like, they admit that gay = bad but then say they have nothing against gays? Well, what more can you expect from children?
Nowadays it doesn’t seem like things being gay is so bad. I’ve definitely proudly called things gay, and it feels like the word ‘gay’ is being taken back. So with time maybe that can happen with the F-slur, but for me now it’s still a super triggering thing.
At least gay has some positive etymological history as well as negative. F-- only has two meanings, and the vastly more common one is incredibly violent. The only thing I’ve seen remotely close to trying to “take that word back” is maybe Martin in the Simpsons in a throw-away gag about his pure nerdy naivete. And that’s not particularly close.
I think I remember that bit, Martin was trying to convince us that “apes together strong” but the boys weren’t having it. He used the two-syllable pronunciation too, which I’d relate to using the N-word with a hard R.
I don’t really relate that bit to “taking the word back” though because I guess I don’t think of Martin as being gay. I mean, he’s 10 years old so he probably isn’t really anything yet. Then again, he is often shown to be effete and I’m sure some of the kids have called him gay before.
To me that joke was all about shock factor. It was like saying “Hey, look at this dirty word we just got away with saying on television! It’s not dirty because we used it correctly, instead of the way you expect to hear it!”
Ok, if I may make a jovial tangent for a moment: I love that you used the phrase “elder gays”. It evokes imagery of this high council of gays where they hold tribunals and wear robes, and have stereotypically gay music playing in the background as if it were your own version of Gregorian chants echoing through the hallowed halls of gaydom.
Queerphobia is still baked into our language. These days it’s all the rage to call people “narcissist” as an insult. Narcissus the Greek boy was put to death by the gods for not dating anyone. The word is aphobic and pedophilic.
The story is that he was so vain that he fell in love with, or was so horny for, his own reflection that he died.
Some versions have him starving to death because looking at himself was a higher priority that eating, others have him kill himself because he couldn’t marry/fuck himself. Nothing to do with him “not dating anyone”.
I think he was a teen in the story, but since no one was fucking, I am not so sure it was pedophillic
Yeah I’m in my 40’s, nonbinary but AMAB, but I didn’t really understand it until relatively recently. I’ve always known I didn’t fit into the male “mould”, but nobody knew what the fuck “nonbinary” was in the 80’s (let alone here in Finland, which is still really conservative compared to the saner Nordics) so naturally I just got beat up for being “gay” even though I was never attracted to boys or men. I even dressed in gender-conforming ways but I was never a “real” man for many boys and men, which naturally meant that they had to correct me with violence.
The conservative pieces of shit who insist that all these “new genders” and sexual orientations are just a recent invention and in the good old days men were men and women were women are the same ones who were beating us up and even killing us just a few decades ago (not that they’ve stopped doing that…)
I didn’t just suddenly decide to become an enby; I’ve always been one, but I didn’t even have the words for any of this until this stuff became more mainstream. And then they have the gall to act like this is all a choice, like I’d fucking choose to be something that means bigots will literally want to murder me for it. When I thought I was a man they insisted I wasn’t a real man, and after I went “yeah you’re right, I’m not a man” they insist I’m a man. Can’t fucking win with them, can we?
I’m noticing quite the same with vegetarianism. I became vegetarian around 15 years ago, when it was still a marginalized group of people. Somehow also particularly as a man, my eating habits felt like a personal affront to other men, at least based on their reaction.
I generally don’t tell people these days, if I can avoid it, despite having had multiple colleagues that were openly vegetarian/vegan. Like, at one point, I felt like the outsider, because I had three veggie colleagues discussing veggie food and I felt like I couldn’t participate without blowing my cover, so to speak.
Fucking ridiculous, the amount of emotional abuse one goes through, for not wanting to eat meat or liking humans.
!tweet by @stealthygeek: First, they came for the transgender, and I spoke out immediately even though I’m straight and cis because I’ve read the rest of the fucking poem.
Wait, this dickweed is in a wheel chair? Doesn’t he realize that not so long ago his regressive buddies wouid have called him a defective person and tried to put him aside? Now that he’s been accepted into society, thanks to the work of progressives, he wants to turn around and shit on another marginalized group?
Not only is he in a wheel chair, but after he got his payout from the accident, he passed legislation that prevents others from getting as much as he did. He is a huge decroded piece of crap. The best thing he could do for Texas, is to stop wasting their oxygen.
I have a personal hypothesis that self-proclaimed alpha [males] may feel the same gender dysphoria that trans folk do, only it is the sensation that they present less masculine than they actually do, so in their effort to attaining a little bit of machismo they go way overboard.
It’s similar I think to the way Donald Trump can be President of the United States, and still feel fragile and unworthy.
I do think there is some element of gender disillusionment if not dysphoria in very insecure men. I don’t think calling them some stage of trans has the right implications though. They are men that want to stay men. But their internal views of men are constantly challenged by their culture and environment.
Nothing says women can’t have muscular bodies or else they must be men or being a woman wrong in some way. But that dissonance obviously irritates the type of guy that unironically wants to be an alpha gigachad. So they impose their own standards on others, unknowingly outing their insecurities.
If I’m being really honest though even if I thought all of that was likely, it’s way more likely that people on the Internet just love to start flame wars about anything if they’re bored enough. Especially when the target is a woman.
I think an argument could be made that since gender is a social construct anyways, the idea of “alpha”, “beta”, and “sigma” males are different genders.
The idea that gender is entirely socially constructed is easily the greatest misconception about gender that gets repeated time and again – almost always by cis people, who never think too much about it because they’ve never had to reconsider their own gender.
Gender roles and gender stereotypes really are socially constructed, like the idea that some clothes are feminine and others are masculine, just to name one example. Gender identity, however, is not. If that was true, like the previous commenter was saying, conversion therapy for trans people would work, when it’s been shown it absolutely doesn’t. Gender dysphoria isn’t a social construct either. Many trans people see their own lives improve considerably after taking HRT (hormone therapy) and having gender-affirming surgeries – how can that be explained socially? Also, we know there is a genetic component to being trans as well, because of twin studies. All of which shows there really is a biological component to gender – just not in the “gender = genitals” way that transphobes think.
The rationale that many people follow is that if gender is socially constructed, it can be socially changed as well (through conversion therapy) to make your kid align with their assigned gender at birth, which doesn’t work in reality.
Those people should probably read more. While a social construct does not have an absolute origin, that something is a social construct has never implied that it’s “fake.”
Especially at the level of the individual, where the gender “construct” becomes a monolith and internal and external perceptions belong to one person, it contains the entire definition for that individual at a point in time. So for the individual at a point in time, the construct is not only real, it’s literally all there is.
hey! the idea that gender is entirely socially constructed is also advanced by agender enbys like young me who simply never experienced a feeling of gender in their lives, and thus agreed with fellow enby Judith Butler that gender is a funny silly game we play for no reason. do not go around presuming those people are cisgender or that everyone biologically feels gender like you do
I can see why this idea would seem appealing to agender people. But that’s taking one’s personal case and turning it into a statement about gender as a whole. Gender having a biological component isn’t at odds with agender or NB people, but claiming gender is socially constructed is indeed problematic, like I said before.
Your quote reminds me of one of the biggest misconceptions about Judith Butler’s work who wrote so much about gender…
People constantly misquote them and say that Butler wrote that “gender is a performance” and assume that Butler meant that gender is fake.
What Butler Butler actually wrote is that “gender is performative”, ie. it involves a performance that communicates our gender identity to others without the performance being the end-all-be-all of gender.
I’m gonna guess you get push-back on this, depending on how you’ve phrased it before, because saying gender is not a construct is a strong/radical statement in the context of theory.
I imagine your point is that, for an individual, gender is not some arbitrary choice. It is very real. I agree. That is consistent with the idea of finding oneself on a dynamic gender spectra that is collectively defined; i.e., a social construct.
The people who try to deny an individual’s gender, who they are, by using social construct as a synonym for “not real,” do not understand the term and, more importantly, will always find some other reason to do so until they learn to be better people. That is, the term itself is not to blame.
saying gender is not a construct is a strong/radical statement in the context of theory
To be clear, I’m saying gender identity isn’t a social construct (gender roles definitely are). And that’s hardly a radical statement given that there is a genetic factor to being trans, as evidenced by e.g. twin studies like this one which found a much higher amount of cases where both twins are trans among identical twins (who have the same genetic code) than non-identical twins. Also, like I mentioned before, a lot of trans people feel considerable relief to their own gender dysphoria upon seeking hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries, which is quite hard to explain on a social basis.
To be clear, I’m saying gender identity isn’t [entirely] a social construct
Then I’m with you 100%.
Sorry for going straight to pedantic bitch over semantics, but sometimes it’s injected as a wedge issue by bad faith actors with local clout, and then burying the lede is a mistake.
Coherency on the gender constructionism thing is a phalanx for everyone in the space (protecting mostly trans folk now, others later) because the potential contradiction in the gender [identity/expression] distinction and the resulting confusion (quickly seen here) is continually weaponized by phobes in an old but still popular have-it-both-ways narrative about wokism.
That’s toxic masculinity in a nutshell. See also the author of The Game describing sex in the most mechanical terms - coming reeeal close to acknowledging he does not actually desire women sexually, he’s just conditioned to see them as a goal.
Yeah this is a favorite pet theory of mine as well, partly because I like imagining guys like Andrew Tate protesting being labeled “trans alpha” or whatever, but also because it’s just a fact that many cis people experience a form of gender dysphoria and commonly seek hormone therapy for it at early ages.
I’ve found that comparison usually clicks with uninitiated cis people immediately, even when they’ve only heard othering and alarmist narratives up to that point.
I’m pretty sure it’s dysmorphia rather than dysphoria. Dysphoria is rooted in an accurate picture of yourself and dysmorphia in an inaccurate one. If a guy starts going to the gym because the idea of not being able to bridal carry his girlfriend makes him feel unmanly, I’d agree that’s some flavor of gender dysphoria. On the other hand, someone like the liver king thinking he still doesn’t have enough muscle is definitely body dysmorphia.
But I’d agree that (similar to dysphoria) the so-called alphas often have dysmorphia of more than just the body - they worry they come across unmanly in all ways of their presentation, regardless of how much “masculine energy” they’re already putting out.
I kinda want to use it to see if I pass as a cis woman with short hair, but then again is my ego really prepared to be misgendered by some shitass app!?
Just a small pedantic note, depending on what we want to emphasize is going on, the government they’re going for is either theocratic autocracy or one-party autocracy.Fascism just describes the strategy of using hatemongering, mythical history and enemy within propaganda to distract the Republican base from noticing that they’re not personally gaining anything from the abuses of the ownership class.
(Fascism depends on a myth that all the undesirables are at fault for the misery of the general population, that once they are removed from the population, the government can get right back to serving the public and fixing all the failing infrastructure and making sure everyone that remains prospers. But there are always new people added to the bottom of the undesirables-to-be-purged list. Eventually the nation will have to go to war to continue to push solidarity among the people.)
From the perspective of the Christian Nationalist movement, the goal is theocratic autocracy in which all the whims of the government are justified by the bible. (The bible, or any sacred scripture, can be used to justify anything, no matter how dire, conspicuous or indulgent. In fact, the Church is notorious for its extremes.) The establishment of a state religion also means the establishment of state positions on dogmatic minutiae, so it’s not enough to be Christian but also to adhere to the specific position of the state. Anyone who doesn’t will end up on that undesirables list to be purged.
From the position of the Republican Party, the goal is one-party autocracy The only thing that keeps the Republican party from completely going unhinged is that it has to continue to negotiate with the other party (the Democratic party for now), but once it no longer has to compete for votes, our legislators are enabled to do whatever they want (or whatever is dictated to them by the leaders of the party, currently Donald J. Trump and his handlers). This is why the Texas GOP is trying to reshape how elections are counted, essentially making a Texas electoral college, so Democrats are locked out. This is not for the benefit of Republican voters, but for the benefit of consolidating all power in their party.
Anyhow, autocracy is the endgame. Fascism is used to keep the public frightened and in line and accepting that atrocity may be necessary to keep the enemys at bay. (Otherwise, they might actually realize this is all bullshit and violently revolt.)
I really didn’t. Like I keep saying, “moderate” conservatives are mythical creatures, much like unicorns or ethical billionaires. I had a “fiscally conservative” and “moderate” acquaintance flat out tell me to my face that the world would be a better place if gender minorities didn’t exist and that we’re all pretending anyhow
Well, you shouldn’t have gone after their kids. You go after people’s kids, they aren’t going to sit down and take it. They’re going to see you as a threat to their children, and if you make people choose between tolerating you or protecting their children, they’re not going to choose you.
I’d be willing to bet that the majority of child abusers are conservative; it’s an ideology centered around dominance and with a proven link to sadism and psychopathy
I’m going to say first off that this is kind of depressing. That said, after my initial knee-jerk reaction of “fuck you, Duolingo,” it occurs to me that is might be a better outcome than them pulling out of Russia altogether.
Providing Russian citizens easy access to language learning provides them access to non-Russian media and non-Russian discourse on queer issues.
In my own experience, learning a language as an adult has taken place in ~3 stages: 1. learn from instructional material exclusively, 2. consume foreign language material with native-language support/tools, 3. learn more of the language via context. If having an app available to folks in an oppressive country helps them get through stage 1 and into 2/3, it gives them a chance to escape the hateful discourse of the regime… In theory.
On the other hand, maybe it’s just capitalists being capitalists.
I like this take. If anything, languages knowledge helps with dialogue, not only thanks to speaking the language. Seeing how language and history interacts between peoples gives a better understanding of the complex modern contexts.
That’s because the headline is slightly misleading. Technically the bill says US government funds can’t be used to buy pride flag to fly above state department facilities. Theoretically there wouldn’t be anything to stop someone from buying it with out of pocket money and flying it, or use flags they’ve already purchased. Still ridiculous though, I know.
Our spending bills have gotten absurdly bloated because it’s pretty much the only reliable way to actually pass legislation without getting trapped in filibuster land or having it killed by the speaker.
Congress has become a joke and their refusal to do anything effective has resulted in handing over way too much power to the court and executive branch. It breaks the checks and balances and huge amounts of the federal government dysfunction we see is rooted in that.
I guess, because its very hard for biological women to get abs like that. The muscles are just different. Not impossible, but way, way harder then for men and therefore quite rare.
And we all know, its very scary for bigots to even look at trans people. They might have to wash their eyes with soap now.
just wanna add that it is easier to get them with testosterone. i think it makes sense to make that distinction here since there are literal cis women body builder who take it as performance enhancing drugs.
depends on the order. if you build abs on testosterone (t) then go on estrogen (e) then you just can with relatively easily upkeep them. if you went on e before working out, its just as hard as for cis women. so hardcore cis women body builder go on t for a short time (some weeks) to get big muscles easier before retuning to e.
So, it’s not exactly easily available for workout purposes, but, much like antibiotics, aquarium and fish farm suppliers are not bound by the normal laws of pharmaceuticals but are bound by food safety to make sure the stuff is pure and uncontaminated.
There is absolutely some muscle loss when on hrt. A study suggests transfems are comparable to cis women after about 2 years on hormones. Dunno if transfems have an easier time having visible abs, though.
I think it’s less that the muscles are different, and more about body fat percentage and maybe distribution. You could have the strongest core in the world, but if there’s a layer of fat on top of your abs, they won’t have this visible definition.
Also… Really rare to have boobs that big AND such low body fat, but all sorts of women get implants.
I interpreted “biological” in this context to refer to women who’ve been impacted by the difference i hormones, i.e., a cis woman with average amounts of estrogen / testosterone would qualify, as would a trans woman who has been on estrogen for a couple years. Sort of a “people for whom the following statement is relevant” kind of an adjective.
The simple fact that you don’t know people’s genetic material, maybe. Just use “cis women“ if you want to talk about cis women and avoid heavily transphobic wording. Gender isn’t related to (assumed) chromosomes
Is the solution to transphobia as simple as calling everyone female or male, in your mind? Because I would personally hate that. You’re just causing divisiveness when there was obviously no malicious intent here.
There was no disrespect in the words you were replying to. These kinds of attacks on innocent people is what the right uses as ‘proof’ of trans supporters being like nazis
so, basically you have the right to tell what’s transphobic or not (you’re saying “innocent” here, that’s a judgement), but me, a trans person, have to lick any boots or be a nazi, just by asking for clarification about a wording? Yeah sure.
In future I’d advise using the term cis woman instead of biological woman because biological woman has a history of being used as a transphobic term by TERFs to delegitimise trans people, especially in the UK.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure about how to differentiate it. English is not my natural language.
I disagree about using “cis” in this context though. I wasn’t sure how much of the effects are hormonal and if it is the same for trans men. And its also true for non binary and genderfluid persons. So cis seemed to exclude many.
I got curious and looked into it and there were some helpful comments too. It turns out it’s mostly about the estrogen. So this means cis women, xx-chomosome non binary and gender fluid people (as long as they are not substituting hormons), trans women on estrogen and trans men who do not substitute testosterone.
So that would mean instead of “biological women” it would be “hormonal female” I guess, or what is the correct for that?
lgbtq_plus
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.