Don’t talk about whales

Someone spilt the tea…

The sad reality is, that’s just what it’s like dating cis men as a trans woman, at least when you’re meeting them through apps or the like. The guys who hook up with trans women in those contexts are either chasers, or guys that are just curious. Neither of them is interested in anything long term though.

The guys who don’t care whether you’re trans or cis, who don’t make it at the core of why they are interested in dating you, won’t find you on dating apps.

Dating apps are awful for everyone, but as bad as they are, they are far far worse for trans folk.

I don’t care if I like them. I very much care if I’m making money for people who are actively trying to take away my rights

I haven’t banned you from any communities. I instance banned you. Which I did, because you implied that Arab folk are all sexist.

Which comes on the back of previous comments removed for transphobia, insults and posting swastikas.

I’ll be instance banning you again now.

You really need to listen to what you’re saying.

You’re arguing for the right to deny people their own identities in their own safe spaces whilst claiming that somehow, the real issue is letting queer folk choose the language that works best for them.

t would be fine if you said "He was kind of pushy about trying to make his point and although he clearly wasn’t coming from any hostile place,

He was repeatedly and deliberately gatekeeping people’s identities. I don’t know how to make that any clearer to you.

Whether or not any given person is a troll, it’s not an excuse to make people’s identities a reward for good behaviour.

If you decide that taking away peoples identities “because they’re a troll” is ok, then you’re telling the gender diverse people around you that you don’t see them for who they are, and that you’re just pretending to accept them as long as they behave in ways you find appropriate. Normalising the idea that we can decide other peoples identities is literally the goal of trolls, and so when you see a troll and decide that’s a good reason to invalidate people, you’re feeding the troll, and hurting the gender diverse folk around you.

I will respect a trolls identity, even as I ban them, because opening the door to deciding which identities are valid does nothing but hurt vulnerable people.

This was all explained to PJ, several times, and he doubled down. And tripled down. Whilst explicitly denying people’s identities.

He was coming from a hostile place, and refused to leave it, even when it was explained to him.

I mean… aren’t you positioning yourself as the arbiter of other folks’ validity and identity?

The fact that you’re equating the creation of protective rules in explicitly safe spaces as being morally identical to gatekeeping other folks identities makes me doubt your intentions. If you genuinely believe they’re the same thing, you’ve got a lot of work to do. And if you don’t believe they’re the same thing, but are comparing them to win an internet discussion, then you’re the one stirring up drama…

Is blahaj drama free?

I hope not.

We’re an explicitly protective, safe space for a minority group that is actively targeted by governments, political institutions, churches, and bigots in general

So of course we create drama. Bigots will make sure of it.

He was banned from blahaj for literally just showing up and saying reasonable things. If that’s against the rules of your instance

Nah. He was banned for repeatedly, deliberately, and knowingly breaking the rules. Whether or not you think gatekeeping someones identity is acceptable, blahaj.zone has rules against it, and his response to it was to deliberately break the rules and stir up shit.

A lot of people feel like, if they think something reasonable, they’re allowed to say it, and it’s weird and controlling for some other person to say that opinion is the incorrect opinion and demand that they not say it within certain spaces.

Tough shit. When someones “reasonable” opinion involves positioning themselves as the arbiter of other folks validity and identity, they’re doing harm. When they choose to repeatedly and deliberately do that in a safe space for those folk, they’re repeatedly and deliberately doing harm and breaking the rules.

All of which to say, even if you’re a gatekeeper like him, who thinks that you have the right to tell other people their own identities, if you come in to a blahaj community and do it, you’re breaking blahaj rules. If you choose to knowingly and repeatedly do it, whilst then complaining about it in various meta spaces, then you’re breaking rules and stirring up drama.

To be fair, they were asking how blahaj.zone feels about the topic!

Drag is banned from blahaj. Gatekeeping people’s identities and pronouns is still against the rules.

And if it was a single comment, you’d have a point, but it was ongoing, repeated and deliberate arguments in a space that had explicit rules against what he was doing, rules that he understood. And rather than following the rules, or posting in other communities, he brought it up over and over again, arguing that he has the right to decide other people’s identities.

And when banned for it, he made sure to keep adding flames to the fire.

Whatever else he is, he is not drama free.

He left Mozilla (chased out because he’s a homophobe) and went on to found Brave, where he still remains

The fact that the dev behind brave is a homophobe isn’t opt in though…

ADHD doesn’t work like that, and this whole discussion is full of the sort of responses ADHD folk get every day :\

You mean comment chain right :p

Someone hexed those cookies

Mostly because they used to rule the world, but everything they touched wasn’t gold, it was all yellow

Hi, from another instance (technically two) that doesn’t require emails!

Except research conducted by men like Sam Parnia rules that out and shows that conciousness persists after death.

That’s not what he showed though. What he was saying is that brain death isn’t the hard on/off line that we think it is, and that in some cases, it’s possible to restore some brain function in a brain that had been declared to have died.

Only problem is that even if the person is barely clinging onto life there’s still the issue of conciousness being strong and present where none can exist.

Sam Parnia quite explicitly talks about “restoration” of brain function. This does not mean that consciousness exists independent of the brain, he’s stating that he believes we can return consciousness to some brains that we believe are beyond that point, and the boundary at which the brain/consciousness “dies” isn’t quite as clear cut as it seems.

He also claims that the experience of consciousness might not be centered in the brain, despite interacting with it, but at this point, he is no longer backed by research or medical experience, and is just theorising.

Which is to say, the research and experiences he talks about do suggest that our “time of death” and treatment of brain death as a binary yes/no situation may be incorrect.

However, it doesn’t say anything new in regards to life after death, souls, or anything along those lines, and Sam Parnia’s talk in these areas is supposition rather than evidence based.

Same as the rest of the fediverse