61 karma · joined March 20, 2021
Many a Utopian project began with a premise like this. You can say the same thing about spelling or the calendar, both of which "logically" need reforming.
Nobody is banning traditional pronouns.
Sicily hits 48.8°C, the highest temperature ever recorded in Europe
(I know there's some question about that reading, but the previous record is 48°)
I'd say you're using misogyny to justify what sounds like very typical toxic masculinity.
Because the choice is either to hide important aspects of yourself, or else come out, whether that's explicitly by saying something, or implicitly by your actions.
In my case, if I didn't explicitly come out as nonbinary / trans, the change in my wardrobe and appearance was going to "out" myself regardless. It seemed healthier and emotionally safer to be upfront about it with the people I know.
In your example, a person doesn't have to "come out" as heterosexual, they can just introduce their spouse, or mention who they are dating. Maybe in an ideal world that would be the case for everyone, but it's not today.
That's not a good argument for the left to stop defending trans people's rights.
Having a name for something can be powerful.
If you're stuck on a task, the last thing you want to hear is that it's really simple.
On the other hand, I would write that X is a simpler approach than Y, if I was comparing two possible approaches.
At least in the United States, any encounter with law enforcement can potentially end in violence, so anything that makes it easier to get a questionable warrant will make things worse.
Another one in a similar vein, which my kid liked, was "Here Are My Hands"
To expand on this - If a trans person has a coworker who consistent and deliberately mis-genders them, there's no way for the person to have a discussion about it that's not political.
The first list you posted has a bunch of "funny" East Asian names. That stuff was racist in "Sixteen Candles," there's no excuse for it in a modern workplace.
My main point was we should have had a coordinated response. Framing it as "leaders decided to indefinitely maintain crippling restrictions" is misleading. Lockdowns were necessary at the local level because there wasn't a coherent strategy at the national level. (Again, speaking only of the U.S.)
In the United States at least, that's a bit of a cop out. Lockdowns were applied at the local level and were originally meant to buy time and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. The Federal government could have then stepped in with mass manufacturing of masks and wide-scale testing. But Trump was reluctant to use the Defense Production Act, and Jared Kushner was put in charge of coordinating PPE supplies, and we saw how that worked out.