I’m a trans woman. Before I transitioned, I wasn’t feminine. I never experimented with family members makeup or borrowed their clothing. Even now, 8 years after coming out and transitioning, I’m still not feminine. No one looked at me after I came out and said “Oh, it all makes sense now”. I don’t wear makeup, I don’t have my ears pierced, I’m loud, argumentative and competitive. I ride an illegally overpowered fat tyred monster bike, and I’m happiest in a tshirt and jeans.

Yet I’m still very much a woman and very much trans.

Of course, many trans folk do embrace gender stereotypes, but you need to understand, that is “after the fact”. For some folk, it’s simply a matter of protection and ensuring that their gender doesn’t get denied them by society. For others, it’s a source of joy, being able to embrace something that they were not able to explore earlier in their lives. And for others, it is inherently tied to how they experience their gender.

But for all of us, it is not our gender, even if it is strongly connected.

Yeah, no, that’s not how being trans works.

I don’t believe that gender relates to stereotypes.

I’m a trans woman. I don’t “get” femininity, and to me, when I perform it, it feels like a performance. It has zero to do with my understanding of my own gender.

I’m still very much trans.

Her comment was meant as black and white. To use your analogy, she would be arguing that 6 wheeled cars don’t exist, and insisting that all vehicles have two or four wheels, and that’s how we distinguish them

I don’t understand how Kaliya’s statements can be controversial or classed as transphobia

That’s because it’s mostly dog whistles and wedge tactics. It’s a rehashing of common transphobic talking points, but with the edges brushed off. It’s the way transphobia is portrayed to appear reasonable at first glance.

The dog whistles are easy to miss if you aren’t familiar with them, but the sheer volume of them from her shows that they were absolutely intended. This isn’t accidentally repeating something, this is an active relisting of transphobic talking points predominantly utilised by transphobic groups.

Sex isn’t a “gender orientation” it is really simple biology.

There are unspoken parts to this. What she really means here, even though she doesn’t explicitly say it, is that sex is real, and thus gender isn’t, and because of that, sex is more important than gender. It’s the way transphobic folk often phrase things so they can have a facade of acceptance, whilst still being transphobic. "I’m not questioning your gender, but you’re still male and should be denied space

Sex and gender might be distinct, but they’re related, often conflated and neither are inherently static, binary or immutable. Any attempt to draw a hard line between them, or to point at a dictionary definition is normally always said with the goal of validating exclusion, and that’s what is happening here.

Gamete size – its really simple.

This is a regular talking point used by transphobic groups. It is said precisely for the reasons I mentioned above. It’s an attempt to make a black and white, one sized fits all definition. And the reason that TERFs use it, is because to them, it’s a “gotcha” definition that allows them to exclude trans folk from spaces. And those reasons are there, but unspoken when Kaliya wrote that.

Stop confusing young autistic vulnerable people.

This is also a straight up transphobic talking point. It comes from transphobic literature that paints transgender identity as a form of social contagion, whilst also implying that autistic folk are more vulnerable to this social contagion. The specific context in which it is normally used by these transphobic groups is when talking about young trans men, by portraying them instead as vulnerable young girls.

You think it IS moral to have male-bodied people who identify as trans women playing in elite comparative sport for female-bodied people?

This is more dog whistle transphobia. The big give away here is that she can’t even give trans women the validity of their own identity. She defines trans women first as “male bodied” and secondly as “identitying as trans women”. There is a transphobic term “TIM”, that transphobes use as a slur against trans women. It means “trans identified male”. Transphobes like it, because it is a masculine name, and because it defines their identity as being male, whilst implying that the trans part is less real. The word “identified” here implies it is a phase, or a deceit.

This comment from Kaliya is using that exact concept, but just skipping the acronym.

Gender can be socially-constructed.

Sure. Parts of it can be, and are socially constructed. But what she is really saying here is that gender isn’t as real as sex.

There are only two sexes.

See my earlier comment. When you try and make things black and white, and use strict definitions, generally, the reason for doing so is to validate a push for exclusion, which is exactly what this is.

Telling male children who have feminine tights they must be female is what is happening and it is hurting boys.

Once more, portraying trans identity as social contagion.

culture has gone competely bonkers confusing sex and gender.

Explicitly transphobic. Portrays trans folk as “bonkers”.

Which is a lot of words to say, she’s a transphobe, and she is rehashing transphobic talking points, but framing them in such a way that the transphobia isn’t immediately obvious to folks who aren’t familiar with trans and gender diverse folk.

You don’t “confirm” it. It’s an attempt to describe a system/outcome. It’s a model of a system, not the system itself and no model is perfect, because all models are our attempt to understand and describe things, and there is no such thing as perfect understanding.

However, it’s a highly accurate model, that explains things very well. So, either we will find that one day, we make a brand new, better model (this seems unlikely given the accuracy of the current model, but possible). Or, more likely, we continue to come to a better understanding of the system, and improve the model we use to describe it.

Are you mounting a FAT32 disk by any chance?

TIL, hiking to Mordor can be dangerous :P

https://walkingintomordor.com/lord-of-the-rings-road-trip/

New Zealand. The whole country feels like a national park especially the south island. However, you would need to rent a car to get to and between a lot of places.

I’d just re-install Windows over the top of the fucked up install normally. It was a bit easier to recover from, and a bit harder to fuck up

It was similar for me, but not quite the same. The thing I hated was starting from scratch. I’m very much not a distro hopper. Back in the day, I enjoyed the challenge of trying to troubleshoot issues and get the system working again, and that kept me interested, but eventually, I’d hit a problem I couldn’t resolve, and I’d have to start again from scratch, and at that point, I’d just go back to Windows.

Now, I still get to do the same thing. If I break it, I get to learn how I broke it and try and fix it, and I find that process compelling. But because I’m using btrfs restore points now, I don’t get to the point where I have to start again from scratch. So I can work at solving it to the limit of my abilities, with confidence that if I can’t work it out, it’s not a huge issue.

I think this thread of replies largely denying it happens, or arguing as for why there’s a good reason that it happens should give you an idea why the issue happens in the first place.

The “starting over” part is what made it take so long for linux to “stick” with me.

Once it became “restore from an earlier image”, it was a game changer!

There’s a couple of different options in there, both in the Metadata section of the preferences One, is the option to use sidecar files, and you can explicitly tell it use sidecar files for everything and don’t write to the original file. Beside the sidecar tab, there is another tab that lets you control how it handles image rotation, and whether it adjusts the pixels, or just sets a metadata flag

It’s a configuration option.

Existing stress, changing temperature and shifting building structure. Any and all of those can cause it

Alguien robo mi telefono en Santiago, pero ella tiene muchos lugares excelentes para hamburguesas y cervezas :)

I’m panromantic, but attracted to men, however I only date women and gender diverse folk on that end of the gender spectrum. My partner is a woman :)

Estaba en Santiago de Chile en Enero de 2024, pero nunca he estado en EEUU

I’m not the OP, but their question was pretty much describing me.

For me, it’s about intimacy. I value intimacy. Hugging, kissing, touching, holding hands, sharing moments, laying on the couch together watching TV etc. Those are things that I don’t do with my friends, and aren’t things that I’m looking for from my friends.

Asexual folk have developed language that talks about the way they navigate similar situations. Sex averse, sex neutral and sex positive. So even though I’m not ace, the terms apply in a similar way to my relationships. Using these terms, I would describe myself as sex neutral. Which is to say that I don’t seek it out, and I don’t miss it. Yet, it’s also a very strong form of intimacy, which I value a great deal, and as an expression of intimacy, it’s very much something I’m happy to share with my partner.