All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Ah yes, trans people who need to piss, or just go about their lives. That’s who’s really oppressing us. Not the billionaires, not the CEOs, or the genocidal maniacs, not the weapons manufacturers, or corrupt judges, or the prisons, or the police.
It’s all trans people, people with brown skin, people who have been made homeless due to stagnant wages and an extortionate health care system. They’re who we really need to go after.
theres literally no federal law allowing a third gender option.
hes just a fucking idiot talking about something that isnt happening for a cult crowd.
Thank you for this reply, was about to spoil my entire Xmas until realizing you're totally right, we already in that particular boat.
"I will end the war in Ukraine. I will stop the chaos in the Middle East, and I will prevent, I promise, World War III."
Oh god he's gonna start World War III.
My mom (who rarely ever makes any political statements) said this the last time he was elected. I hope she's wrong a second time.
The UK doesn't recognise more than two genders either so applying for assylum in the UK if somebody isn't a man or woman won't make any difference to them being recognised.
It is called TERF island for a reason.
Germany does recognise this, however we won't give you guys Asyl, since that would mean that the USA is absolutely fucked and we can't admit that(sadly).
Germany is also moving further right so I am mentally preparing to flee or fight when shit hits the fan
people can barely live due to low wages
"tHeRe wILL oFFicIALy bE tWO gENdeRS!" -🤡
What a fucking joke
And people eat it up. It's sick how many people would rather focus on bringing others down than pull themselves out of despair, let alone anyone else.
First they came for the trans folks...
No, they didn't. The fact is that they are coming after trans folk now, but they were definitely not the first on the list, just the latest.
It is clear that enough Americans are OK with the fascist track we are on. Otherwise Trump would have been defeated in a landslide.
Stay safe out there, and keep those you care about safe. This ain't gonna be pretty.
The US population is just struggling too much to care, that's part of the playbook: keep people poor and the rich rich, so that the economy will be the main driver of votes, and of course the sitting party is always to blame for the bad (or perceived bad) economy, so people vote for the other party no matter what. The same thing is brewing in east germany with AfD stemming basically from the same economic problems, and you'd think they know a thing or two about fascism there.
As horrifying as it is, wars are good for the economy because governments are printing money like they're no tomorrow to build weapons and ammunition, it creates tons of jobs. It'll come at the cost of a depression when tomorrow finally comes, but that'll be the next party's problem, and people on average can't see much further than the tip of their nose. Then they'll vote the fascists back in to "fix" the economy again, just in time for the economy to start turning and take credit from the previous administration's policies. People don't want progress because progress involves compromises while they're hurting right now, they don't want to compromise for the right thing.
Nobody would care about trans people, immigrants, green energy, electric cars, etc if the lower middle class was wealthy. People care because of the perception it's taking away things from them in a time of need where they can't afford it. For trans people that's DEI being perceived as favoring against them, for green energy that's going the more expensive route they can't afford/it's cheaper to set their trucks to run coal and not have to put AdBlue in or replace a clogged up DPF. They want regulations gone not because they don't care about the environment, but because they hurting right now financially and it's costing them right now.
it's a reference to a poem about the rise of the nazi party in the 1930s
I am aware. I am saying we are further down the "Then they came for.." part of the poem.
I would prefer it if gender was just left out of official documents and policies, and rules would just focus on medical situations. This would leave space for everyone to be who they are while still allowing for specific care for people who menstruate, get pregnant, have a prostate etc.
We don't have separate rules or bathrooms for people who wear glasses or are redheads, but somehow this archaic binary distinction is so ingrained in our society that people feel the need to categorize them in almost every domain of our lives.
I say this as a cis man so if my opinion sounds stupid I am willing to learn. I do have some close trans friends and what I feel is that they just want to be allowed to be themselves. Like, their search and discovery of their identity is of course super important to them, but at the same time they are just people. I discuss them now because of the topic, but in my head they are no different from any other person I know. Just let people be themselves and don't force boxes where they aren't needed.
This is the ideal, but there are still people walking around who can't get past the idea that skin color doesn't dictate how human you are. These same people are also prone to thinking that anyone with a vagina is inherently less intelligent... followed by gay people are bad..... for some reason? Now trans people are also bad... for reasons? Then they justify it with outdated and/or straight up pseudo science so they feel good about their beliefs.
Trying to communicate complex issues with people who think like that is very difficult since they aren't functionally operating from a foundation of reason or logic to begin with. It takes immense amounts of patience and grace to get through to even a few people like that and it's not something many people have.
just focus on medical situations
Well, there is this "transgender lunacy"... bet he wants to "cure" people.
Let's remember some reasons used in the past to cure people:
Also, I looked up that list you posted, as some of the entries seemed very strange to me, even for the time.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reasons-admission-insane-asylum-1800s/
In general, this document might be more accurately described as "a list of some reasons why people were believed to have eventually developed illnesses that led to their being admitted to the West Virginia Hospital for the Insane" and not a list of "symptoms" or "reasons" why people were admitted to that hospital.
It's an extremely funny list, but shows more that psychoanalysis in that time was pretty stupid, not that people were being put in an asylum for showing these behaviors.
Although, novel reading was a problem attributed to Satan and has been a subject of moral panic. Like violent movies and video games, editorialists and ministers suggested women who read novels — especially romance novels such as those by Jane Austen — would confuse women who are unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and might be driven to act out these stories in real life.
Yes, that trope is centuries old.
"Psychoanalysis" is a word coined by Freud in 1896, just after the period on that list.
The problem with the fact-check, is that back then, they didn't care much about what was a "symptom" vs a "cause", they called everything an "illness". To be fair, there also was little in the means of therapy; for reference, some "therapies" that were invented afterwards to try to fix that: Incandescent light therapy (1893), Psychoanalysis (1896), Lobotomy (1935), Electroshock (1938). Instead, in the 19th century they used stuff like: moral therapy, hydrotherapy, abstinence, opium... and simply confinement.
"Lunacy" is a very dangerous word when used by a politician towards any group of people.
Lunacy
Awoo.
It really shouldn't be. Yes we've been raised on slasher cinema in which madness justified the bogey man's capacity to kill in grisly or creative ways, but in reality victims of mental illness who are dangerous are extremely rare, and most of us are more likely to get gunned down by law enforcement for failure to understand conflicting orders.
Curiously, the precursor to slashers, the whodunnit presupposed that anyone could kill if motivated enough to do so. In reality about 20% of soldiers make around 80% of the kills, with the remaining troopers unable to do so, even when faced with a mortal threat. In the old days, such soldiers were branded or executed for cowardice. Modern armies move them into the immense supply line that keeps our front lines running.
These days, politicians discrediting lunatics are the same ones that can't tell the difference between trans folk, drag queens and furries, and are simply capitalizing on fear and hatred for social media likes. Whilst unfortunately, they are seizing power from more reasonable candidates, they will just as quickly target the sane when it suits them, based on race, religion, counter-culture or even the inability to keep up with labor requirements while malnourished.
Before NSDAP came for the communists, socialists and trade unionists, they cleaned out the crazies, including the gays and trans folk. Ultimately they would feed everyone to the fire if the Allies didnt overrun Berlin.
True.
Just a correction: the NSDAP first went for internal political oppositors Night of the Long Knives, what in modern US they're calling "RINO" Republican In Name Only... I've already seen literal calls to kill them! (on X)
The new poem might as well go like "First they came for the RINO, but I wasn't even Republican and didn't like them anyway..."
I don't mean focus on medical situations as a wildcard to just practice any sort of (pseudo) medicine on people. It's about rights being given, not taken away.
The reason I mentioned this, is that the erasure of gender from official status might have as a side effect that rights related to gender (for example pregnancy leave) have to be defined in a way that doesn't link it to gender. By no means do I want some sort of medical laws or such that force things upon people, it's more about rights linked to a person's medical conditions.
In that sense, I see having a penis, or a uterus, or something else as just one of the medical characteristics of a person, just as for example their blood sugar, eyesight or mental state. Rights and care should be based on that, and not on a F/M on an official document.
All logical and fair... but you can already see the POTUS calling it a "lunacy". That defines it as a state of mental impairment, which leads to restricted personal liberties, and is just a step away from forced "therapies".
Gender agnosticism should've been codified a long time ago, but it wasn't, and now they're planning on codifying the opposite.
I do not recognize his authority in this matter. I will continue to exist. He might as well declare pi=3.
thats ok Trump. Our official Policy is you are a monster and we will do anything in power to stop you. We are all going to fight you every step of the way.
I invite y'all to Germany. We have legally recognised three genders plus changing your name and gender entry has just become easier (although politicians of the most likely coming up government said they want to reverse the latter, though that party is not exactly known for keeping their word).
lets just wait and see that germany doesnt elect the nazis first. :(
We won't.
It might look likely through the lens that is appropriate for the rest of the "democratic" world but that lens is not reliable for Germany. In the rest of the "democratic" world, the extreme fascists are hidden much like a dirty secret and so any noise from them that slips through is hugely amplified because it signals the existence of a much larger and more significant fascist movement. In Germany, the extreme right are in clear sight and much more of their noise gets through and the lens that amplifies that noise makes it seem that they might win.
That same democracy will ensure that they do not. In Germany, we can see them for what they are and their seats in parliament represent a more accurate measure of their support base. That support base is tragically large and significant but not enough to give them more than seats in parliament: they do not have a majority and would only form a majority through a coalition with other parties and, here, the transparency is a disadvantage: other parties who stand to be part of the next coalition won't join with the AfD.
Our democracy is not a two-party system. They will not win by jerrymandering or by playing the game. They cannot even sneak power by having a better candidate for key seats because individual seats are won through "first votes" while winning a majority in parliament would require them to take a majority of "second votes" – the system would put those "better" candidates in their seats while correcting the share of seats, overall.
The reason that they are given any space at all is also to their detriment: in Germany, there is exactly one way a political party can be blocked and that is if they contravene the constitution: Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar, usw.
This is why we tolerate their presence and one sees the noise they make: they haven't – yet – violated that consequentially, and so they cannot be blocked. Blocking the AfD would be great – I'm all for it, in isolation – but it would compromise something about German democracy and the cure would be worse than the disease because it would only silence their noise: the movement would proceed apace and their movement is, itself, a symptom of a greater problem: there are people who are ill served by the status-quo and the AfD seem to be an "alternative."
If the AfD ever did gain power, however, they simply could not do what they insinuate because that would tear it and the constitutional court would smash them. This is also true if they form part of a coalition: that coalition could not execute on the plans they hint at.
Now, "unantastbar" is a fantastic German word that cannot readily be translated to a single English one but one aspect of it implies immeasurability. The AfD could never pass legislation that discriminated against LGBTQ+ people because that would necessarily divide "people" into two groups and apply a comparator between them and that cannot be done if people's worth is immeasurable. The constitutional court knows this, as do the defence teams who have surely prepared this argument for the day when it becomes necessary.
Germany is by no means perfect and even German democracy is flawed in some ways but, largely, Germany is a good place to live. There are many archaic laws that persist – the gendered language and gendered baby name things count among a legacy of problems – but, largely, these are being progressively overturned. (Albeit slowly.)
Sometimes, we make a few steps forward and then a few (hopefully fewer) backwards but, largely, I think Germany is on the right track.
Currently we aren't at a point, where the fascists(AfD) gonna form a coalition. Its very likely that the conservatives(CDU) will be the leading party. However, they still have to get a majority so they will have to form a coalition with either the populist authoritarian right(BSW), the green party or the social democrats(SPD). The liberals(FDP) and the left may not pass the 5% hurdle and therefore won't have any influence on the politics. FDP, SPD, and the green party are the currently governing Partys(even tho the FDP blasted the coalition and doesn't do anything anymore) Currently it may be possible that CDU and SPD(which have ruled a lot of times before) are able to form a coalition by themselves, although it currently isn't very likely that this is possible. So they need a third party to coalate with. This will be either the AfD (they currently aren't a a point where they will work together), the greens or BSW. The chancellor candidate for the CDU announced that he doesn't want to coalate with those, so its probably going to be CDU, SPD and BSW. In theory the SPD should be able to hold back the CDU from destroying alle progressive work that has been done in the past 4 years, but sadly they have a history of betraying everyone to be able to govern for 4 more years.
So in short, we will likely have a right conservative government, but we won't have fascists(yet). It will devinetively get worse the next 4 years.
I don't trust Merz to honour his word to not coalate with the AFD if it gets him into power. Their election program is pretty much the same as the AFD and they're just pretending for people who are not looking into it that they're not the same
Na. The Nazis most probably will be strongest opposition party, but the government will be populist.
Would love to get out of the US with my partner but unfortunately as Americans nobody wants us
The world wants teachers, doctors, and other specialists, but it can be very difficult to leave without money or higher education. You could look into masters and PHD programs internationally and try to leave via study to employment.
Do they still have the law where names must relate to the gender though?
Yeah, I think (but am not 100% sure) this still applies, although you only need one gender related name, all other names are free for you to choose. And if you have the diverse gender designation you obviously probably don't have to choose a gender related option.
Anyways, the fascists are very close to get the majority vote here so maybe not the best idea to come to Germany either :(
I'm not sure, tbh. I think that only applies to baby names, but I'll be sure and check later when I'm home
Thank you!
So I looked it up and I have to update my statement before.
First, one can also just have their gender entry outright deleted.
Secondly, naming conventions are the same as for baby names:
Generally, first names have to correspond to the new gender entry:
- Who chooses the male gender can use a name or names that are purely male ore both male and female.
- Who chooses the female gender can use a name or names that are purely female or both female and male.
- And who chooses the gender „diverse“or to delete their gender entry has free choice among male and female names
- For all genders, the chosen names have to be actual first names.
(Source translation by me because I was too stupid to realize there's an English version)
Unfortunately, despite the actual progress this law certainly demonstrates, it also shows there's still both a binary way to think about gender and certain expectations linked to gender well seated in the minds of lawmakers. Nonetheless, it's a lot better than what we had before.
India federally recognizes more than two genders.
Probably the most progressive destination in terms of gender recognition TBH
Is the UK actually the safest place to be trans, because jesus fucking christ.
No, it's not.
Thank goodness. I haven't done research into trans rights in many countries yet, so I was sincerely afraid that the UK might be as good as it gets 😰
canada rn but even that depends on the province