4·
7 months agoWoz is the true Tech Jesus
No that would be Stallman. In so many ways, but most importantly by establishing the concept of free software and pushing hard for progressive values. Also by being unpopular with the masses.
German trans woman (female pronouns) pursuing a cryptography-PhD in the Netherlands.
- 0 Posts
- 40 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 18th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·8 months agoThere’s a lot of trans-medicalism in your post comrade.
Not really, no. I’m talking about biological sex, not gender.
A trans woman is a woman, full stop.
For non-medical and non-biological cases: Yes, and no one say disputes that.
The thing is that there are some people who don’t believe that for the other cases. I’m pointing out that while it is indeed a bit more complicated and takes some work to fully get there, trans women can even medically/biologically be women.
HRT and bottom surgery doesn’t define a person’s gender. Only affirm it.
Indeed. They change the biological sex, which helps affirming gender.
That said, I do like pointing out to transphobes that I have less testosterone and more estrogen than my afab girlfriend thanks to gender affirming care.
Which makes you biologically a woman. I really think we should hammer that point home and not let people get away with it by limiting our criticism to the choice of words, when we are scientifically in the right.
Amab and afab are equivalent to biological male or female, just less explicit I suppose.
That’s the point: They are not! Any sensible interpretation of a biological sex has to look at the whole system and we have comprehensively proven that biological sex can be changed. It’s a spectrum to begin with. Refusing that is like refusing that irrational numbers exist and claiming that every number can be written as a fraction: Understandable if you subject-matter education ends in 7th grade, but not if you actually looked into somewhat deeper at all.
Would you still argue that you are more biologically female than male if you considered that your DNA in every bit of your body still has the male set of chromosome?
For starters, define male set of chromosomes. If you say XY, then you will be interested to learn about De-la-Chapelle-Syndrom and Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome.
But even if we put that aside, the thing is: Chromosomes really don’t matter all that much. The relevant differences primarily lie with organs and hormone-levels. Now, there are things you can do with gene-therapy (there was for example that trans girl who used CRISPR on herself to get her testicles to produce E instead of T). So it’s not that they don’t play any role at all anymore when you are an adult, but what matters much more is the overall metabolism and HRT is absolutely capable of switching that around.
Like: Name the difference between a post-op transwoman and a cis woman who received a radical hysterectomy. Their metabolisms are functionally identical and both will have to substitute the same amount of Estradiol, because both lack ovaries. Chromosomes really don’t affect anything here, so insisting that they create a biological distinction, when they clearly don’t have any effect anymore is completely arbitrary.
I’m not arguing against you, more so arguing that the distinction doesnt much matter and could be argued either way. I’d rather just take someone’s word for it when they say who they are. Thats the whole point isnt it, acceptance?
The thing is: That is about accepting someone’s gender, which is usually indeed the more important thing.
But biological sex of course also exists and the important thing for many of us is that it can in fact be changed and the claim that it can’t is deeply problematic and harmful.
I haven’t even had bottom surgery yet, but thanks to HRT my metabolism is much more in line with that of a typical woman than that of a man. Meaning that it is much more accurate to refer to me as a biological woman than as a biological man. So saying I’m the later isn’t just insulting, it is even scientifically incorrect. A trans woman who has received bottom surgery is in fact for pretty much all intents and purposes the same as a cis woman who has received a radical hysterectomy. Unless you call that kind of cis woman a biological man, doing the same to the trans woman is just as nonsensical.
And yes, this really affects pretty much everything: The treatment of things like brain tumors depends on biological sex and if you treat a trans woman like a man you are going to see the same bad outcomes that treating a cis woman like a man would have. Because again: Trans woman are (from a certain point in their transition onwards) biological women. Yes, it changes, get over it.
The reason to talk about amab/afab is specifically because they are the only terms that are reasonably consistent in all edge cases, except clerical errors.
Can’t he just not tell them that he has it? At least in Germany that was generally the solution for gay people to donate blood: The only person who could potentially be liable would be the physician if they knew for a fact that you were lying. Which was very unlikely, considering that those red cross people rarely included the local GPs. (The legal situation might be different in other countries though, so check!)
GHB
I think that is the point where I would consider pressing attempted murder charges. That shit is insanely dangerous and it’s withdrawal can apparently be worst than that of fucking Heroin. Like: There are places that are otherwise very open to drugs that have zero tolerance policy on that stuff.
3·8 months agoThe crazy thing about minority report is that nobody, least of all the people who made it, seem to have understood the problem that the movie depicted:
Having the ability to predict attempted killings and interfere with them would be a genuinely good thing! The problem was the notion that everybody who is predicted to commit such a crime gets an extreme punishment without even a trial, consideration of the circumstances, or any of the other things we would normally attempt to do if we learned about someone attempting to commit a crime. Equating premediated murder out of greed with an over-reacting in a highly surprising situation, with self-defense, with pretty much just accidents and punishing them all in the most cruel way you can imagine is what was so idiotic about the movie that it was hard to take seriously. Trials are there for a reason, and that reason isn’t just to figure out what happened physically!
If you don’t want people to point out that you are spreading Nazi-ideology, than maybe don’t spread Nazi-Ideology…
Locking you (and everyone making similar comments here) up would also help all the people that you won’t have the opportunity to hurt or kill. Because how can I know that you won’t ever commit a crime like that?
The idea that you can get security by simply locking everyone up who commits a crime is delusional and for the outcomes you only need to check the US.
Higher education is truly a scam.
It really depends. From what I hear about the US a lot of it is there. But in some ways that is also the exception.
Compare Germany: By most rankings KIT is one of, if not the top university for computer science in the country. The requirements to get a spot there are literally just that you are qualified to study (aka: have the right high school diploma) and haven’t lost your right to study computer science at a public university by conclusively failing to do so at a different German university. When I was there until 2019 we payed a bit over 100€ per semester in administrative fees and got a limited train ticket in exchange.
The only selection criteria were “did you pass your exams?” that during the bachelors were almost all written exams that were the same for everyone. What you learned was to an extend up to you, it was a university, not an apprenticeship, so there certainly was a significant focus on theory, but especially during the masters a lot just fully depended on what you wanted.
The main cost at the time was just general housing and living costs, which in my case was payed for by my mom, but for those for whom this is not an option, provided that they were either German citizens or legal residents for reasons other than the education, there was BAföG, which comes down to an interest-free loan from which you only have to pay back 50%.
And yes, I definitely learned a lot of useful stuff there.
you definitely don’t have the authority to say he’s definitely beyond ANY help. That’s the part I find ridiculous, not the part where you think there’s something wrong with him
It’s an approach known as perpetrator type theory (or “Tätertypenlehre” in German) that was notably deployed by the Nazis to be able to punish people they didn’t like much harder than others, by allowing them to say for example that someone was inherently and unchangeably a murderer and should thus be executed. The crime was essentially just proof of that, what you got punished for, was what some judge deemed to be the innate criminal personality you had. In particular this allowed to hand out lighter sentences to “Arians” and to decide that Jews for example were inherently bad and could thus be punished much harsher for the same crime.
It’s very obvious from your posts that you neither know what the purpose of a punishment in a legal state is, nor what the effects of them are.
The idea that a multi year sentence is “getting of easy” is insane. And from what you are writing I get very strong vibes that you are one of those people who still subscribe to debunked ideas of perpetrator types, which are unironically Nazi-ideology.
The world that you want to create is not a safer one, quite the opposite in fact. Rehabilitation is the by far most important aspect of a punishment and the idea that crimes like the one in question are committed by people who carefully weigh how many years they are willing to spend in prison and could thus be deterred is beyond ridiculous.
It should not be legal to hand out life sentences to minors, period.
In Germany the maximum sentence for minors is 10 years and depending on your developmental state you can count as a minor until you are 21 (You are always treated as one if you are under 18). And that is how it should be. Locking people up for life helps nobody.
This is a completely artificial US problem that has been completely solved in Germany and many other countries by requiring a 1€ deposit to unlock the cart and returning it when you relock it. So, complain to the store for failing to use basic countermeasures.
I’m not saying it’s an easy line to draw because you obviously don’t want to create incentives for bad journalism, but don’t want to make it too high of a bar to get into in the first place. I think you’d need to take things like the number of readers, the factuality of headings and content, the originality and the investigative value into account and be able to at least temporarily cut of bad outlets that spread fake/hate/… while at the same time ensuring that inconvenient truths make it out.
It’s not an easy task, but I feel there is more room to get somewhere useful than with the current model of billionaire-owned media that outdo each other with rage-bait and inaccurate/misleading/falsly balanced/biased reporting…
The honest answer are general fees like they are used for public broadcasters. It’s not a perfect system either and it requires significant effort to keep things neutral, but overall it seems to have the best results if you compare the quality of the outcome.
Not telling someone something isn’t gaslighting. That’s a very different thing.
And you are making the mistake of assuming that other people think like you, have the same preferences as you, also have memories on an at least subconscious level, …
There are just so many factors, that depend on the person and this is one of those cases where extrapolating from your own lived experience is not the right way to do things. Like: I’m trans and you can trust me, that I have my own places, where I know that I can’t apply my standards to other people (“what do you mean, people don’t like the effects of cross-sex hormones?”).
I’m positively surprised that the article acknowledges the nuance of question of whether unknowing victims should be informed, instead of just jumping on the “tell them all, no matter if it hurts them more than the crime did”.
Anyone who claims that there is a simple answer that is always best is acting out of ideology, rather than an interest in improving people’s lives…
The one thing that might help somewhat, at huge logistic cost, would be to ask everyone what their preference in a situation like that is, ideally with the possibility to have different answers for different crimes. Like, combine it with a question on being an organ-donor and a couple of similar things. Since it goes to everyone, people who don’t know and don’t want to know can stay in blissful ignorance, because the question doesn’t arise suspicions, as it would be if only they got asked. You could still get bad results, but in that case they would at least be the results the people in question choose. Though even this approach can’t easily deal with the cases of minors being involved…
All that said, there is another component to the case, that might be the biggest problem with it: The perpetrator getting of easy because it was assumed that the victims didn’t know and the implication of a much harder punishment had they been known to have known: Whether the victims knew, didn’t change the crime that was committed, only the outcome. And punishing the outcome rather than the action is an extremely bad way to enact justice. (Yes, attempted murder should be punished like murder!)
That’s now how it works: In the US “justice”-system there are only extremely limited cases where it makes sense to plead guilty, because it pretty much just means that you skip the trial and get sentenced directly. Especially if you want Jury-nullification, you have to plead non-guilty so that the Jury can find you innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.