8,023 karma · joined January 23, 2012
With the multiple contradictory statements, even just within the README, though, my company’s lawyer would say we can’t use this dependency at all if I showed it to them.
Misogyny sucks, transmisogyny is a special breed of that, sadly.
Point is - I am legally recognised as a woman. My legal name is a woman’s name. I have tits and a cunt. If you start asking me what my “real name” is, or suggesting to people that I might rape them if we share a bathroom, you’re the one bringing politics into work - I’m complying with the law. I want to be at work less than you do, I don’t have a choice, let me exist.
Being forced to wear men’s clothes, a binder, and be called Kevin would be literally torture - I would die before I did that. It is not at all the same thing as sweatpants or khakis. It’d be blood on your hands.
I also have breasts, can’t exactly hide those without causing damage. Visibly disabled folk get harassed at work too, they can’t hide their very personal problem, nor should we be asking them to.
This isn’t relevant in the workplace. I am legally recognised as a woman. If you don’t accept that - politics isn’t acceptable in the workplace, remember?
Aside from that, sure. I’m up for more research (that doesn’t harm trans kids - smarter people than I know experiment designs which don’t result in people receiving subpar treatment for years on end). More research on trans people is welcome, there’s fuck-all of it out there, and now the meantime, we must do our best to use what we do know to help people.
I wish people did see it as a deeply personal issue and felt embarrassed about bringing it up, or trying to get their fingers into my healthcare as in the rest of this thread.
You cannot have it both ways - attempt to tell me to shut up when defending myself, while trying to tell me you know better than my doctor and me about my healthcare and gender.
Come out and say it - “I would prefer you dead than have to work alongside you”.
But inaction is always more moral than action, even when it harms people, right? When we see that we’re about to run over 5 people, but we could instead run over 1 by pulling a lever, we shouldn’t pull the lever?
There’s some more history and a bunch of bigotry involved, but that’s the core of it.
DOI 10.10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.007
We have no strong evidence that it is unsafe in humans, and a bunch of evidence that it is safe.
The Economist is a weird source for a medical research discussion.
A child can get put on lithium and kill their emotions for years with less hassle. And no court involved. That should tell you the priorities of the people who tell you it is a good idea to prevent kids from accessing medicine that is widely agreed to be safe and effective.
It wasn’t easy for children to be put on puberty blockers before and it’s worse now.
If you can’t see how it’s fucked that all this isn’t enough, and we must make it even more impossible for doctors to do their jobs, I don’t know what to say.
We could just, never treat anyone for anything, then nobody would ever regret any treatment.
Defending the right of someone to write a book about their thinly veiled hatred is one thing; commenting that you think there’s a good point in it and other people should read it is another.
Look, here’s how it goes:
1) you have no job
2) you take the first job that comes your way, even if it doesn’t actually pay enough to survive - a little money is better than no money
3) you take the second job that comes your way so that you can survive
4) you have no time to actually do anything towards getting a better job
Understand?
This is why jobs that pay less than what is needed to survive are bad for individuals and bad for society; people have to take them. Nobody is going to help you survive otherwise.
Zero hours contracts in theory mean you can refuse work (at least that’s how it works in the U.K.), but obviously you’re going to be fired for doing so, so you’re essentially constantly on call for both/all your jobs.