I think it’s a lot more black and white being trans than people realize and I have my own pet theories about what gender euphoria /dysphoria is that I observe as being two independent factors.

Half of the problem I think in reaching people is that the vast majority of cis people don’t have an observed internal gender preference. We are trying to build empathy with something we as trans people assume they have too - but maybe only a small minority of cis people experience it. I don’t think we actually understand cis people, we just assume a bunch of things about them using trans people as a false opposite.

Thing is… If I am correct, the assumed massive earth shaking regret of what would happen if a cis person went through gender reassignment… Is they might just adapt and be fine.

I have pointed out to people before that trans women athletes in practice tend to not outperform all women in the sport. The data we have puts them as no more competitive as women with naturally high testosterone and depending on sport can actually be at a disadvantage…

But there’s another underlying assumption. You assume your athlete went through masculinizing puberty first and then a female puberty second. If you skip that first step then you don’t see major differences of frame, weight distribution or muscle mass.

Where this stings is that laws are forcing people to go through that first puberty regardless of the wishes of the paitent, the patients families, the paitents doctors and the concensus of the medical associations of those doctors… And then the government sits back and demonizes those people based on their physicality as a logistical social problem for the rest of their lives and ostracizes them based on this logic.

Athletes squew young. If you allowed through trans athletes who went through the transition process young enough or looked at sport with trans populations and statistically assessed whether any excessive advantage was afforded and allow in those instances where none was found you could solve for any statistical stand out issues within a decade…

But no, we are having this inane conversation because it suits some government parties to make people feel that trans people are a threat or a problem that must be stopped and that there is zero reasonable inclusion policies.

It isn’t that there’s tons of trans athletes… It’s that even at fairly low levels of sport there are currently more options available to people with disabilities to participate then there are of people of intersex and trans backgrounds. In a lot of cases tracking performances of trans athletes they aren’t dominating. There’s stories of transfem athletes who regularly sit around getting 15th place but after coming in first one time the entire sporting becomes hostile to trans people.

In civil rights discussions there’s a concept of rights of participation. The concept being that being barred from social, political or recreational spheres creates outsized harms on the ability to make the advantageous connections others are given free access to and creates classes of segregation.

There’s also a catch 22 situation. If someone opts to go through a trans puberty instead of a natal one there is no meaningful difference to speak of between the physicality of trans athletes and cis ones. If forced to stay inside their original sex segregated sport not only are trans people being being told in no uncertain terms that society does not accept their new status regardless of parity, they essentially become isolated inside the sporting body. Either you have someone whose body is feminine placed in a sport with only cis males to be compared to or you have a masculine body placed inside a group with all cis women and both will be framed out of being taken at all seriously inside the entire body of that sport. A lot of trans people can’t participate in sport not because they aim to be picked for any of the social leg ups excellence in sport provides… But for any of the regular benefits of just participating.

It creates a fair sting to have a government force your choice of initial puberty that neither you or your doctors and parents thought was a good idea… and then sit back and watch the rest of society constantly punish and isolate you for going through that puberty by then treating you as a logistical social problem for the rest of your life.

Segregated sports based on a demographic like that isn’t as trans affirming as you would think… My gut reaction as a trans person is about the same aversion I imagine a person of color would experience if a white person tried to put forward a “People of Color sport league”.

Ditching us all into a new category like we’re quarantined in sport away from other athletes because we’re implicitly not cis… Isn’t something I would appreciate.

You are halfway there. Those examples you gave define constructs but a lot of these things are not what philosophy uses to define social constructs. Scientific taxonomy constructs and linguistic constructs are things but they are fairly useless in discussion surrounding social constructs because while different cultures might draw the line differently around what exactly constitutes a “chair” vs say a “stool” or some such that’s more of just a linguistic boundry. Its basically always a thing you sit on.

Philosophy uses a bunch of different ideas labeled as different forms of construct to break down the idea of how different types of categorization or subjection happen… but when they start talking about “social” constructs they are specifically talking about categories of human interactions with something that have incredibly variable different potential contexts based on culture. It also requires things which are included or excluded from those category for not entirely practical reasons. Philosophy uses this to talk about how social categories are subjective creating or allieving tension between different cultural groups.

Food is actually a good example. There are a lot of things culturally considered food and non food items despite those items all having nutritional value and being safe to consume. In our increasingly cosmopolitan world a lot of expansion has happened to increase the size of the category. Like raw fish was not considered a food item by a lot of people when and where I was growing up. Now sashimi is everywhere and no one bats an eye. Digging for another example mice are technically edible but even raised and slaughtered cleanly very few would consider them valid as food. Whether what I put on your plate is deemed an disgusting insult or a delicious delicacy is really in the eye of the beholder and has caused a number of historical diplomatic and cultural issues around other cultures veiwing each other as inferior.

Just because something is a construct does not automatically make it a social construct.

Food is a social construct. For a social construct to exist you have to have a social category with shifting goalposts based on different context and cultural factors that are not rigidly defined. Like “Fat” - what is considered fat for a person is based on context. A supermodel is fat for being 5’9 and 145lbs but we would call a constructiom labourer skinny as fuck at those same dimensions. Each culture constructs it’s own version of what defines “fat” which is different and distinct from something than the medical guidelines for obesity or an expectation of reasonable health. “Fat” is in the eye of the beholder and represents overlapping cultural circles with varying degrees of consideration of what is excluded from the category.

The scientific concept of nutritional substance is not how we always define “food”. Culturally people contest what is considered food vs non food items based on cultural factors. Like eating mice for instance does have nutritional value but there are a lot of people who would contest them as being a valid food item even if they were raised in clean conditions due to cultural adversions. “That isn’t food.” has been uttered in all sincerity by people encountering strange delicacies that their culture has taboos against eating beliving it dangerous, unpleasant or just categorically not something intended to be eaten. Thus “food” would be in part a sociologically constructed category.

Canadian here, we don’t do that either. Primaries is one of the many additional structural barriers to representive voting being adopted in the US and a step away from having more than two parties in their system. It also increases the campaign costs for candidates and exacerbates the issues with first past the post voting meaning running people becomes an exclusive exercise for the wealthy or people with wealthy patrons who make handshake agreements.

As I understand it, Instead of having parties internally figure out who they are running on the docket as party head like sane people they open it up to basically a second first past the post election of internal candidates. You register as a member of those parties when you register to vote to participate (or not) in the election before the actual election. Personally to one outside that system that just seems like an additional bundle of problems to deal with by doubling down an already outdated voting system that creates further issues of populism but some Americans are very fond of archaic systems. You know something something founders of our nation blah blah can’t change anything our fathers who art in 6ft of dirt didn’t personally come up with blah.

Forgive my glibness. Being a neighbour is hard sometimes.

Yay for the social sanctity minding one’s own beeswax!

Looking forward to a future when fake rhinestones are just kinda shit manufactured diamonds.

Absolutely LUDICROUS, they always try and walk it in.

Gunna take this as Liberal/Conservative as party brand names rather than strict social ideology and you’re talking about “the left” more generally.

I think the short answer is empathy. When you dig down to the bottom a lot of the discussion on the left talks about different forms of human needs. A need to feel accepted and loved, desires to exist publicly without fear… It is a radical form of empathy that asks you to put yourself in multiple pairs of shoes and see the world through perspectives you aren’t naturally born into. The ultimate aim is to achieve a picture of humanity which is inclusive of the widest possible range of understanding.

In that way “Conservatives” are also people. It is not impossible to empathize with their issues. It takes a lot cognitively to internalize this new data and a lot of the rejection from the right comes not from outright cruelty but a desire for things to be and remain simple and easy. They don’t want to stretch themselves and are scared of a world where that is something they are forced to do. The issue is a lot of the people selling the pitchforks on that side are doing it because it benefits them. That desire to understand encompasses the motives of individual Conservatives and splits them apart. A lot of the issues Conservatives have is that the left is “preachy” that we act like we’re better than them and that does come from somewhere. Some leftists do just want to be the smartest most correct person in the room but others are just waiting for the Conservatives they know to be more understanding of other people who they learned about so they stop being mean. The person who pitties the school bully is often their target because that empathy seems to the bully like condescension.

Uh… Was this in response to the right post? I am not vegan nor do I wish to be and I never mentioned anything about rice and beans…

Half my social circle has gone vegan at this point and I think a lot of the anti-vegan sentiments is people don’t like modifying their behaviour to give up their own comfort even when they know something is distressing to someone else. Since a lot of vegans see a very real cruelty that they are generally powerless to stop and other people do not understand their reactions to seeing other people participate in cruelty is often to feel very sad. Since so much of human culture surrounds shared meals having a vegan takes a lot of options off the table entirely and alters other people’s options even when they don’t intend to.

Like it’s not a matter of “well we’ll go to your vegetarian restaurant this time and next time we go to a place I’m excited to go” for those of us who care about our friends being upset we basically rarely pick our first choices and more often sacrifice things we are excited for in the name of someone else’s comfort. It can be a love language to find restaurants and eat the things on the menu that don’t exactly thrill you but other times you just want to have that selfish Birthday dinner where you don’t feel compelled to pick a restaurant for someone else.

I think a lot of people reject veganism more forcefully because they don’t want to have to participate in that sort of friction. All it takes is one ethical vegan to completly change a friend groups food culture. Even when they bring their own food and try not to make a big deal and mask it not bothering them when they see meat being consumed people are generally compelled to care for people they know and ignoring someone’s distress isn’t showing care. When people ratchet up the social cost of veganism they are more often than not trying to engineer a social sphere where they do not feel callous, don’t have to give up what they like and don’t have to do any additional research work or social calculations .

The sort of “Band of Brothers” vibe is something I have noticed talking with the two folks from high school that fell that direction that I know. It feels like a high school clique but with parasocial relationships. Like they don’t want the hassle of being king but they do want to be knights lording it over some peasants.

It’s a very common thing for people to equate queerness with other concepts of otherness like “not from my group!” type pearl clutching. Bigots in a lot of places are weirdly more accepting of individual queer folks when they are noticeably foreign and more treat the concept of people being queer as an outside corrupting influence… Nevermind that the existence of queerness is basically a universal. People from non-permissive places really don’t want to believe that their culture will also constantly manifest new queer people. They often believe something along the lines of if they stamp on it hard enough it becomes more rare instead of just more people hiding and struggling in isolation and silence often risking their lives if they misjudge a social situation or dying because of a pervasive sense of dispair.

But no matter how hard you stomp the “problem” never goes away. You have to keep stomping forever in perpetuity. The boot must always rest heavy on someone’s neck and will never touch floor again because there will always be someone there to rise if the pressure ever stops. It’s in part why the concept of people essentially just being “born that way” has been so powerful.

Good on him!

There is a considerable overlap between misandry and misogyny. Things like gendered participation in society like a mens only draft is misogynistic because it posits that only men are of value in combat wartime defense but the issue does get muddier. Consider also alot of organized resistance to the draft for all American conflicts after WWII were actively participated in by women even though they were not directly effected. A lot of the social resistance to the conflict was female coded imploring to think in terms of social losses of sons, brothers and husbands in a plea to make men more humanized. The topic of having a draft at all regardless of whether it only effects men is generally unpopular demographically with women as a whole usually because they care directly for the welfare of men they know. So using that as any kind of “gotcha” isn’t going to be recieved well.

Misandry as an issue is tied into gender politics in a weird way. It pushes aptitude for being capable of dangerous work and disruptive classroom behaviours as a masculine trait… But the buy in comes from all sides. A lot of the victims of heavy misandry are queer and gender non-conforming youth and guys who are told they are too emotional, quiet and cautious. The whole “alpha male” discussion for instance is peak misandry. Take other issues of gender bias is court custody cases that tend to paint men as victims of gendered bias but less than 1/3 of judges are female and there is evidence that gender bias cuts both ways regardless of the judge so while there are definitely things female judges should consider they are not the majority that needs to be spoken to.

On a lot of misandry related issues “the call is coming from within the house”. Should we be looking at laws to combat misandry? Yes. Would these initiatives likely just be ultimately termed “woke feminizing indoctrination” by the right and be ridiculously unpopular with men demographically as a whole - also yes. Misandry comes in a lot of flavors not just the kind that comes in the forms disliked by “manly” men.

As a discussion point we as a society are in the infant stages of concensus on misandry. At the beginnings of the feminist movement a lot of misogyny came from inside the house too. Women were looking at other women with disgust at them being loud and brash and “man like”. Treating their desire for expanded social roles as an affront to the delicate nature of correct womanhood and saying nonsense like “what man would ever want you” or claiming that behaving like men would impact their fertility. That’s basically the genderflipped version of where we are now with a lot of men actually being quite on board with a lot of misandry.

Technically speaking the laws mostly already existed for everyone but since they were buried in disparate bills it wasn’t well known about or spotty in enforcement. This is more just improved codification rather than a lot of new laws.

So be assured all those death and rape threats, criminal damage and abuse based on sex are still a crime to do to men.

Getting an appropriate Misandry law on the books might not be terribly popular though since a lot of masculine folk themselves look at misandry as being just “apex manhood” and have bought into it wholesale. They probably wouldn’t thank you and would react poorly if you showed them the full scope of what counts.

The conversation around misogyny has reached a point of reasonable concensus regarding what counts and it’s damages. Misandry as a concensus needs a few more years in the oven as the center is still soft.

There is no true answer to the Tao of hair. I gave up and went around to hair dressers and said "Do whatever you like " until I found the one who made me look good. Now my hair looks amazing like 95% of the time and the remaining 5% is the occasional “just trying a thing” that becomes a temporary conversion piece.

I realized I do not actually know what I want. To believe such was mearly ego. I am going to people who have better trained aesthetic sensibilities, why should I, someone who has no sensibility direct them? I am but a canvas, a scruffy Tabula Rasa.

The DIY though is undoubtedly more cost effective…

Honestly that some are capable is uplifting…just not in the way you’re thinking.

I got lucky, my family never cared about me being anything specific so my social transition was the dream of minor annoyances while they had to overwrite a lifetime of conditioning of what they called me… But I have other trans friends who are clinging to the bricks by their nails because their parents think they are possessed by demons or “Don’t want to deepen their mental illness by playing along” So many parents demand absolute piety and there is something inside us damaged irreparably when they withhold their love.

I get to be strong because I am cherished by my people. To see people weakened for the lack of something I am given so freely is to know that I am not just lucky. It is to know exactly how much I owe to circumstance. Many of those who starve for acceptance see people like this and while the bitter see the nearsightedness… The dreamer dreams that it is possible one day it could happen to them because people who actually changed when it is their kid are rarer than you could hope.