“Why don’t trans and intersex people trust doctors?? ”
Hmm idk could be because people like this:
{ context: this man is replying to a trans person saying their family tried pushing them to suicide as a young teen to save their reputation in the church because the person is trans then disowned the person as a young teen because they wouldn’t kill themself… And how this trans person has been denied medical care for being trans.. For the conservative dickhead only two people in his family stopped talking with him… He thinks that’s totally the same as adults telling a trans youth to kill themself and giving that minor the objects to do so… Or a trans person being denied medical care for being trans… }
Trans people and intersex people have been repeatedly harmed by the medical field over and over again and the fact there are still people like this becoming doctors is terrifying..
Today’s court ruling weakening discrimination protections for LGBTQ people stands out as extraordinarily strange to me for the simple fact that there was no case. The web designer in question never received a request to create a website for a gay wedding, but instead argued that a hypothetical situation in which she did would violate her rights. I’ve never really heard of anything like this before— how does she even have standing to sue? Can @radiofreederry or someone with more knowledge of legalese than me elaborate on this?
In this latest case, there is no website and no wedding—just an argument from an anti-LGBTQ group in search of the court’s favor…
No person has hired Smith to create a wedding website. In fact, Smith has never designed a wedding website, according to her petition to the court. As such, there is no client Smith has told she is rejecting due to her stated religious beliefs that marriage is only allowed between one man and one woman. In the absence of all that, ADF has, instead, fashioned Smith as the victim of an injury that has never occurred.
So who has hypothetically victimized Smith? A Colorado anti-discrimination law, which, since 2008, has included protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ADF claims Smith’s desire “to bring glory to God by creating unique expression that shares her religious beliefs of creating wedding websites” is thwarted by this law “because she only wants to make websites that comport with her values that same-sex marriage is illegitimate.” Were Smith to get into the wedding website business, the anti-discrimination law “would force me to say things about marriage I disagree with,” Smith wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Times, when her case was argued at the Supreme Court last December…
Can the court rule on thought experiments?
The “Case and Controversy” clause of the Constitution requires that, for a suit to proceed in court, there must be an actual controversy for which the court can rule.
Because SCOTUS is made up of unelected, unaccountable ideologues, however, they do whatever they want with impunity because neither Congress nor the President have any power over them.
SCOTUS said they ruled on this case “to clarify the [nonexistent web designer’s] rights.”
what do u mean???? it was clearly an accident she even said “Oooppsss”
LMFAOOOO
Look, rather than being petty and destroying it, why not talk to the girl. Really ask them why they are using the confederate flag. But no, low level terrorism is the answer.
LOW LEVEL TERRORISM?
Low level terrorism
ICONIC
world heritage post
Morally correct
Just a reminder that tweet has lasted longer than the confederacy
No-fault divorce is actually very recent. That is, a divorce just because you wanted to get divorced and not because they were guilty of some provable transgression. California’s no-fault divorce law was 1966; the latest US state, it was 2010. When I was in Catholic school, we were taught to believe in and promote anti-no-fault-divorce positions. This is very recent history, and you cannot take even this for granted. Stop being “edgy” about feminism and its flaws. Every movement will have some flaws. But do you not think that this, and the risk it represents, is significant to women as a class of all backgrounds?
it’s literally as simple as “if you are against no-fault divorce, you believe that men should be able to own women like property”.
I do a series on Tiktok/Reels called “Good Trans News” the whole idea was to try and give other trans people a reprieve from the constant barrage of bad news and try to provide hope by showcasing positive news that affects trans people.
I’m not sure why I never posted those videos on tumblr, because I think they could do some good here.
Honestly if anyone tries to tell you the racism and antisemitic overtones in the Harry Potter books were accidental, remind them she is a fan of Matt Walsh.
As in, Matt “women are most fertile at 16 and teen pregnancy is only an issue because men aren’t responsible enough to marry them” Walsh.
Matt “abortion is evil and arranged marriage is great” Walsh.
Matt “besties with Ben Shapiro and part of alt right news site The Daily Wire” Walsh.
That guy.
JKR isn’t a feminist. She isn’t even a lib. She’s an alt-right Tory.
The film she’s referring to is Matt Walsh’s “What Is A Woman” which if you’re so unlucky you may have seen trailers of the past couple years on YouTube. It’s more or less just him asking queer people to define what it means to be a woman and getting mad at the answers they give before cutting to him narrating why this is delusional nonsense destroying western society or whatever. The whole thing is predictably disingenuous as you may expect, but what’s most important here is this:
“What Is A Woman” is a film you can watch only on the daily wire’s website, and (at least at the time these tweets were made) was only viewable if you were a paying subscriber.
Let me say that again with emphasis,
JKR is, or has been, subscribed to at least one alt-right propaganda site.
You don’t just accidentally stumble upon that, and even if you did, you wouldn’t stay there long enough to pay them money if you were a feminist because half the weirdos who post on the daily wire post anti-feminist garbage, and I’m not even just talking about the forced birth whining or whatever, Brett Cooper has stated before that she would rather lose her right to vote than lose the right to own firearms. Ben Shapiro is a rampant slut shamer. Jordan Peterson spews incel rhetoric CONSTANTLY.
So can we, if but for a moment, stop pretending the ONLY criticism of JKR is that she’s transphobic. It’s not. It isn’t. This isn’t even the only alt-right creep she’s on friendly terms or even openly a fan of. If you want a full commentary on JKR flirting with the alt-right, there’s a video here with screen shots and such. Most if not all of the tweets are still up if you want to verify that this guy didn’t just make them in photoshop.
And if you want some specific examples of the blatant racism, fatphobia, pro-authoritarian, transphobia, homophobia, and good old fashioned misogyny in the Harry Potter books that you can point to the next time a TERF starts a tirade about how JKR is actually GIRLBOSS FEMINIST or whatever to remind them that she isn’t JUST transphobic, there is a very long and extensive video that covers the basics so you don’t have to re-read all of the books just to prove to yourself you didn’t imagine all of that bigotry.
I was actually going to make a compilation of all of this myself before I happened upon these videos in my recommended list on YouTube, I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth here.
