LadyAutumn

LadyAutumn , 6 days ago

Fascists do not see trans people as human beings. It's not a matter of thinking. They literally view trans kids as subhuman and want to implement a state apparatus to forcefully abuse them with conversion therapy.

LadyAutumn , 6 days ago

Not to nitpick, but the article posits that his new best friend is Kim Jong Un and that China is unhappy with this development.

LadyAutumn , 8 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

I love how every acab post inevitably brings out a bunch of uninformed libs in the comments talking about how pigs are only bad in America (as though the term ACAB was invented in America...) or how a society without them is completely inconceivable. As though badges grow on trees, like police are just a natural thing that sprung out of the ground.

The primary function of the police is to protect private property and enforce eviction. They're state agents who are allowed to use violence against working class people, and do so to prevent us from overthrowing the ruling class and redistributing wealth and the means of production. They protect class hierarchy. They attack protestors. They use state violence against the disenfranchised and the marginalized. The "just doing their job" of the police is to protect and preserve the unequal distribution of power in society. They do so by using violence against the working class. The rest of anything else they do is a small fraction of their job and entirely secondary to their primary functions.

LadyAutumn , 8 days ago

ACAB as an acronym began in the early 20th century by workers who were striking in the UK. It is a term with a long, complex history behind it. Cops are the institution, so I'm not sure what you mean by individuals. Every member of the police force, from the top down, is a bastard. Every single one. There's no exceptions to this. The very nature of law enforcement is being a bastard. It is a term that is meant literally. Law enforcement functions as a means to break strikes, to enforce private property and ownership of the means of production, to enforce rent and evictions, to terrorize the impoverished and the marginalized, to collect menial tax from the impoverished who cannot fight back against them, and above all else to act as the legal arm of state violence against working class people.

Individual cops may have done good actions. I'm sure there's a cop out there who's volunteered at a soup kitchen, sure. But that has nothing to do with him being a cop. That has nothing to do with the actual role he fulfills in day to day life, with the violence he enacts, with the system he supports.

The idea that police are holding back some tidal wave of horrifying crime is and has always been propaganda. Nearly every single woman I know has been a victim of sexual harassment or violence at some time in their lives, including myself. A lot of them have gone to police before. I don't know a single person for whom that did literally anything good for them. I know 1 woman who was harassed literally across the country by people including police officers who said she was lying. The police don't prevent murder. They don't prevent violence of any kind that's literally not their job. More often than not they are the ones committing acts of violence for which there are no repercussions.

LadyAutumn , 8 days ago

I mean, it's not a slur, but an insult? Sure. Liberals are not allies to leftists, and actively support the same systems we seek to dismantle.

LadyAutumn , 7 days ago

No, I'm an anarchist and a police abolitionist.

LadyAutumn , 6 days ago

How do we deal with them now? Is dealing with serial killers the day to day of the police? Is that their primary function? Do they even really do anything about it without constant prompting from victims and the community?

I've been a victim of physical and sexual violence. Nearly every woman I know has been at some point. None of us have ever had any positive experience with the police. At most they hand wave us away, at worst we are accused of being liars and of wasting their time. Police don't prevent anything. They don't solve anything. They don't address anything. They are only occasionally turned towards a specific person who has done something wrong and used a means of state violence against that person. That is an exceptionally rare occurrence. They are the perpetrators of violence many times more than they are the defenders of victims.

Essentially, what is being currently done about the john Wayne Gaceys of the world? What is currently being done about the Bill Cosby's, about rapists and pedophiles? What are the police currently doing that actually prevents those things from happening? Nothing. They only do anything after something has already happened. And they don't do anything to prevent those things happening again. Their daily job has literally nothing to do with the John Wayne Gaceys of the world. It is in the things I listed in another comment. In rent enforcement and eviction, in enforcing private property and means of production, in collecting menial tax from the impoverished, in defending the interests of the rich and of the state, and in harassing minorities while enforcing hierarchies of gender race and class.

LadyAutumn , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

You might know someone who has, I sure don't. I've been in rehab, I've been in women's shelters. I've been in homeless shelters. I've met a lot of people who have been victims of violence. Loads who have gone to the police for help too. I cannot name a single person for whom the police did literally anything beneficial whatsoever. There are a lucky few. Mostly white mostly middle class people.

But that's all besides the point. And you're choosing to continue to ignore that this is not the purpose of the police. A side action that they are occasionally asked to perform, and which they very rarely do anything beneficial towards. More often than not police are themselves perpetrators of physical and sexual abuse (their daily job is literally commiting acts of violence and using the threat of violence, it's not surprising). The primary purpose of their job has nothing to do with violent crime or with violent crime prevention.

My point being getting rid of them isn't going to change all that much if they don't actually do all that much anyway. Women get raped every day. Sexual violence is essentially a given for the majority of women in our society. The number of victims is staggering, especially when you poll people indirectly. Police do nothing about this. It's literally not their job. I know a girl who was sexually assaulted at 15 by a man in his mid 20s. Not only did the police fail to do anything, but the justice system actually supported the man and absolved him of all wrong doing just because. She was harassed by members of law enforcement who were friends with the man and local members of her community to the point that her family literally fled out of the country out of fear for her safety. Hers is just one story in a mile high pile.

There are millions of women who have been victimized again when trying to report crimes that happened against them. Being a woman or a minority immediately dispels any fucking notion that the police are there to protect you. That's not the point of their job. It literally isn't that is literally not why police were conceived of nor is it what they spend their time doing. I don't have to come up with a system that ends all violence. No such system presently exists.

If I'm being asked to replace the police then I'm sorry your question doesn't actually make sense. I'm an abolitionist, I don't believe that the police should exist at all. I'm also an egalitarian who believes every hierarchy is coercive and we should dismantle all of them. I think that dismantling patriarchy as a concept and giving women and non-binary people equal power and respect within every realm of society would do many times more to prevent sexual violence than any amount of coked up gun toting militaristic assholes with shiny badges will. When it comes down to individual instances of violence, I believe how it is handled should be decided by those in the community in question, those directly impacted. I believe that violent crime warrants some kind of response but it shouldn't be up to some uninvolved unempathetic judicial system to decide how.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

So we cant compete if we have ever had testosterone in our blood, even though cis women also have blood testosterone and can undergo testosterone related hormonal puberty if they have certain conditions, and also we are not allowed to transition before the age of 16 which would mean we had undergone some measure of testosterone hormonal puberty. Also, the concept of "male puberty" is awfully ill-defined isnt it. Have cis women with PCOS gone through "male puberty" ? What specifically constitutes "male puberty"? What hormonal levels are necessary to qualify for "male puberty"? Can Cis men with hormonal deficiency disorders compete in womens sports? To what end does this ruling "protect women's sports"? This does nothing in a sport that has 1 single trans female athlete except specifically ban her from competing under some misguided notion of "fairness". I'd love to see them describe how excluding anyone is meant to protect anything, let alone fairness. When will height categories be instituted? When will we make wingspan brackets? How exactly is this competition meant to be fair to begin with?

So this is just a de facto ban on trans women participating in any sports under this organization. Nice. Just say that then. No woman is going to accept being forced to compete in a men's category, so all you have done is single out and exclude one group of women based on their status as transgender. Creating an "open" bracket does nothing either, as there are probably only 1 or 2 trans athletes who would be competing in this organization anyway.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

The categories are gender segregated. It's not that no woman would ever do so or want to; it's that banning a woman from women's sports is saying that she's not a woman. That's the very point of the category to begin with. Forcing a woman to compete in men's category is declaring her to be a man, which is something the overwhelming majority of women would not stand for.

Recall the controversy surrounding Caster Semenya. She was very much declared not to be a woman by an international sporting organization.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

To compete with men? Afaik most organizations do not have rules explicity banning women from men's sports. Not sure what you're talking about.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

It's not a genetic difference, for one, it's a hormonal one. Children pre-puberty are effectively identical in terms of physiological gender differences aside from environmental factors.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

I'm genuinely not sure what you're asking. Your comment doesn't make sense.

I answered the question you asked initially in my second comment.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Not sure how you not making sense is my fault exactly, but okay.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Kind of a contradiction in that trans women aren't female bit lol. Very much depends on how you define that and how you measure it.

The categories are also not called female categories, they're called women's categories, which is effectively the same thing in this conversation. Female is a loose category encompassing people with many typed of bodies and many hormonal levels and many degrees of feminization and masculinization. This is effectively excluding one group of women specifically and ignoring all other groups that have advantages.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Are there no cis women with large wing spans or abnormal height, though? Are they still allowed to compete? Why would trans women specifically be excluded for that?

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Sex and gender are effectively the same thing for this conversation. We consistently refer to female athletes as women and the terms are entirely interchangeable here. Sex is also a socially constructed category based around certain anatomies and characteristics. Gender is assigned the same way sex is. Sex is not the hardline objective reality it's being treated as here. Women with CAIS are not forbidden from "female sports". Similarly, women with PCOS who have high T are not banned from "female sports".

I'm not male. No part of me is male. My legal sex has been changed. If we're separating people into male and female, I'm placed into the female group.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

So again why are cisgender women who are above average allowed to compete but transgender women are CATEGORICALLY not allowed to compete even if we're within the average for all women?

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

So it's just a ban on trans women from sports, just because with no actual logic or ethical rationale behind it. Even though it is literally not fair, and the justification provided for it is "fairness". Gotcha.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Lots of things? There's no one single thing that affects hormones. Not every person with a specific anatomy has the same hormones.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Intersex people exist and the variation of people assigned one sex or the other is damn near infinite so no, the assertion that sex is binary is really only ever used to exclude transgender people and intersex people from rights and to assert that there is a biological basis for assigned gender roles. Sex is dimorphic because we choose to describe it that way, we could just as easily have more sexes just by creating more categories based on aspects of human physiology.

And I'm female, so the only ethical rationale would be that I would compete with other people that we consider female.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

It's objectively the truth that sex is another class category created by humans to sort people and enforce a hierarchy of sex. That argument (trans women are male women) was adopted to appeal to cisgender people.

I'm female, I am a woman. I'm not male. My legal sex is female.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

So any woman stronger than the average for women ought to also be excluded then? Again, why is it specific that trans women be excluded?

There are not and likely will not be anywhere near enough trans people to occupy a single category at a single event. Refusing to allow trans women to compete as women, like every other woman, is a de facto ban on transgender women participating in sporting events. Transgender women are women, just like tall women are women and women with large lung capacity are women. Why should trans women be excluded for being above average but other women who are above average shouldn't be?

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Can you define male puberty though? Like qualitatively in specific terms and with specific language?

Being pro trans is being pro women. Excluding some women from women's sports would be discriminatory to those women. In this case those women are transgender, and they are being excluded because they are transgender. Which would be opposed to their right to participate, a right we recognize for all other women and girls. That would be anti trans, in this specific context. It doesn't mean you oppose all of trans rights, but you're actively supporting the exclusion of trans people from professional athletics.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

So de facto banning some women from any kind of professional sporting competition is acceptable because it's too much work to include them? Why is that acceptable to you? And why is it necessary to couch these concepts in discussions about fairness when you yourself admit they are not fair? Excluding female people from female categories seems counterproductive to any attempts at providing level playing fields for women and girls in professional athletics.

Also there are other groups of women that are on average more physically capable then the average for women as a whole. Should they also be excluded?

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

So cis women with CAIS (XY) are out too then.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

But there are more than 2 observable variations of humans.

There have also been many cultures with more 2 than sexes/genders (the difference is literally 0 prior to the 50s).

And animals have genitals but they do not have conceptions of sex. They don't abstract categories from physical attributes they just recognize and respond to the bodies around them.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Preventing trans women from competing in women's sports is a ban on trans women in sports. Trans women do not have testosterone levels anywhere near cis male levels. And none of us are going to degrade ourselves by being categorized as men.

If you would make trans women compete against men then you're saying trans women aren't women. It's as simple as that.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Most of the trans community absolutely does not agree that trans women should be excluded from women's sports, no clue where you're getting that from.

And trans women are women, excluding us from women's sports is literally not fair. We are not men, nor are we male. So we are not going to compete in men sports or male categories.

And if we don't make sports fair for everyone then why are you talking about fairness?? If it's not fair already then what materially is lost by trans women competing?

Say a transgender woman wins at a competition in women's sports, what materially has been lost here? A woman won a women's sporting event. What is happening that is unfair?? She's female, she's a woman, so how can you assert that she shouldn't be able to participate in women's sports? To what end? What is lost by letting the half a dozen trans female athletes in the world compete?

The literal only justification for it is a fundamental belief that trans women are not female or are not women. Any other attempt at justifying it falls apart at the seams because there are more outlier women physically than there are transgender women at all, so banning transgender women but allowing outlier women to compete is literally just banning us cause we're trans.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

So yeah it isn't fair, so we can stop saying that excluding trans women is about fairness then.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

True! Yes trans men should be allowed to compete in men's categories. I think they are strictly speaking so long as their T levels aren't abnormally high (same as all men).

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

Trans women are not male.

The bar for entry is and has always been several years of sustained hormone therapy with normal estrogen and testosterone levels. And even that is far too restrictive.

What about groups of cisgender women who are above the physical average for women as a whole? Why is the proposal to ban transgender women and not other groups/classes of women based on them being on par above average? I mean is it fair for women from South Korea to compete against women from the Netherlands? Should women from the Netherlands be banned from competition? They have an average advantage, so it's unfair to the rest of the women that they're allowed at all.

Your essential argument has to be that transgender women are not women. There is no other argument for excluding trans women that adequately explains why it's necessary for trans women to be excluded and not anyone else.

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

A baby. Are it's genitals relevant somehow?

LadyAutumn , 13 days ago

I mean where else would you want them to compete? Are there trans men out there demanding to compete in women's sports? If sports is sex or gender segregated than yeah they should compete with men.

LadyAutumn , 19 days ago

Butchers. Child mass murderers. Anyone who tries to defend these acts lacks any semblance of humanity.

LadyAutumn , 21 days ago

No? Israel is and has always been the deciding factor in whatever happens with Palestine. They refused a legitimate 2 state solution, continuously have stolen land from the west bank and Gaza, and are openly genocidal towards Palestinians?

How can you both sides this in a comment thread under an article about a zionist literally trying to pay off an American politician to support the Israeli government in committing crimes against humanity?

LadyAutumn , 21 days ago (edited 21 days ago)

"Would have"

Cool, but I don't care about this weird hypothetical world you're talking about that we do not live in and have never lived in. The Israeli military is armed by the United States with american weapons. The IDF, with American guns and missiles and planes and tanks, is in no way threatened by what a group of disenfranchised Muslim extremists can cobble together. It's never even been close, not in 1949 and not for one second since then. They are essentially prisoners of the state. They are disenfranchised. They do not have access to land to till and raise animals in. They do not have freedom of movement. The water they have is controlled by Israel, the electricity they have is controlled by Israel, the medical supplies they have are controlled by Israel. The strip is an open air enclave. The west bank is and has been slowly being annexed by Israel (crime against humanity) over the last 60 years.

You're talking about a population of 2 million people with 1 struggling to operate hospital. Who have been mass murdered thousands of times over the last 100 years by the IDF and Israeli state. This road does not go both ways and it never has. They literally mowed starving Palestinian men women children and elderly down with machine guns. People following a truck carrying flour because they are desperate for food. There are children starving to death in hospitals. We have people who need medications to survive dying because the IDF and the Israeli state and the zionists are doing everything they possibly can to prevent them for getting those things.

It's time for you to open your fucking eyes. You're trying to both sides a genocide, equating the genociders with the victims.

You referred to "Arabs in the area" in another comment of yours too, equating hamas with all Muslim people in the middle east. Ask yourself why you're generalizing a population of hundreds of millions of people and claiming they are all genocidally antisemitic.

LadyAutumn , 21 days ago

Mhm. Goodbye zionist.

LadyAutumn , 23 days ago

God how I hope it's true. I hope they take his cars, they take his home, literally everything this man owns. He deserves it. He knew exactly what the fuck he was doing, and now the feds have come to collect. He had plenty of chances, hundreds of chances to prevent this.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

Being a landlord is morally wrong. Shelter is a human right, not a service. The service that they provide is not calling the cops to evict you so long as you pay them. They don't otherwise provide you with anything.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

I do agree that grocery stores are morally wrong in some sense yes. People should not have to lend their bodies in order to eat. Hotels aren't morally wrong entirely, because they're only providing a place to stay temporarily. If they did provide long term stay and charged for it than yes that would be morally wrong. You'll note that I'm an anarchist.

There is no such thing as a moral landlord. And the people you're talking about downsized. The landlord does not do repairs, he hires handyman and trades workers to do repairs. The landlord collects a tax from you while giving you nothing in return. My rent is twice the monthly cost of a mortgage for a mini home in my area.

When you have a mortgage the money isn't gone when you spend it, it's used to pay off your loan. When you're done you own the property.

I will never own this property. None of my money is returned to me. It is taken by a person or entity who literally does not provide me anything.

I'll repeat, providing shelter isn't a service. What the landlord is providing you, is not evicting you so long as you provide them a taxation of your wages that goes straight into their pocket. If all landlords died overnight nothing would materially change except for all the people renting could now keep their wages, and hire the handyman to do the work themselves. Housing co-ops also cover the costs of upkeep by pooling money to spend. No, landlords are 100% immoral 100% of the time and your buddy who's a good guy and a landlord might be a good guy but it has nothing to do with his being a landlord. Some cops save dying animals and volunteer at soup kitchens I'm sure, they're all still bastards by participating in a system of militarized state violence.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

My rent is 50% of my income I will never get back.

No, renting is literally incomparably more stressful than owning a home would be where I could sell it at any time and get a portion of my invested income back.

If I could opt out of my landlord calling the plumber when I need one, I sure as fuck would if it meant I could keep my money. No, my rent goes straight into his pocket every month and a fraction of a fraction ever comes out to cover upkeep. I'd happily opt out and pay it myself.

You sound like you're probably decently middle class. Which is fine and I'm not saying that you have no experience being a lower class renter. But you probably are not familiar with the same financial pressures we live under today.

Landlords should not exist. Nothing would be lost if we converted every apartment building into a co-op. We would all have much more disposable income and much more control over where we lived.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

You're awfully lucky then. That's a form of socialism, assuming that your government is intervening and ensuring affordable rent even for homeless and those on assistance. And what are the quality of those rentals? Have you lived in one personally?

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Oil CEOs pay fines for bringing about a global climate catastrophe. Fascist politicians are given slaps on the wrist for an attempted coup d'etat. Government officials openly commit gross violations of privacy and suffer no consequences.

But a guy hacks a university network and downloads a hoard of scientific articles that should have been freely accessible to begin with and he gets 35 years in prison. I'll admit I wasn't familiar with this case before I saw this picture. Which is kind of insane in and of itself.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

If he remembers, bless his forgetful little head.

Sadly, if he doesn't, his many fascist benefactors will. The transgender community exists in an existential horror where a genocidal fascist movement slowly builds itself against us, but it's being led by some of the most idiotic repugnant people who have ever lived. One Google search can immediately dismantle 99% of the nonsense they say about us, but it doesn't matter because no one who supports them cares.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

The government specifically targeting the well-being of minority children is sickening. Medical decisions rest between a patient and their healthcare professional who, unlike lawmakers, are actually trained to provide that care.

It's hard to quantify the mental toll these endless attacks have on our whole community. Transgender youth have already had to deal with many institutional barriers to accessing hormones and hormone suppressants that save their lives. Now they have to contend not only with constant political attacks against them and a coordinated effort at genociding their entire community, buy also with the state outting them to parents who may abuse them if they find out. Many children are abused at home, a staggering amount actually. Queer children are significantly more likely to suffer abuse in their homes.

These laws are attempts to kill children, to prevent queer children from being allowed to openly be themselves. These children live under constant fear of the state. Their government is actively hostile towards them and their rights. There is a persistent and growing fear amongst everyone in our community that it is only a matter of time before a state decides to force all trans people into conversion therapy and forced internment. These kids know that too. They're not stupid they see what is happening. Genocide is anything but subtle, and the fascists have been declaring their intentions towards us loudly for years now.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

How can you control what they use weapons you give them for? Maybe stop giving them any amount of money and weapons

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

The accuracy he achieved and in that time period with the information available to him is frankly staggering. The degree of his error is slightly complicated by the stadion not being a historically exact figure, but his calculation showed the Earth to be 252,000 stadia in circumference. Accounting for the variability in the exact length of the stadia dependent on what definition was used in the calculation, that gives us in kilometers 39,060km on the lower end and 40,320km on the upper. The actual circumference of the Earth is 40,075km. This gives him an error range of between -2.4% and +0.8%.

He also didn't just use a stick but used extensive geographic charts to calculate the distance between the 2 cities where he measured the shadow. It was a monumental achievement and is shockingly accurate. I also believe this knowledge was lost to time and for quite a long time after we did not have any measurements even close to this accuracy.

Here is a picture visually demonstrating how he performed his calculation.