• 0 Posts
  • 102 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 2nd, 2026

help-circle







  • What you are misunderstanding (possibly intentionally), is that each axis of power dynamics has more- and less-privileged positions: race, class, sex, gender, sexual orientation, physical dis/ability, mental dis/ability, etc. A fully able-bodied and mentally healthy rich, white, straight, cis man is obviously going to be more privileged than a paraplegic, poor, black, gay, trans woman with learning disabilities (but note that even this does not automatically translate into more happiness, better self-esteem, etc.). But if you try to compare the privilege of an upper-middle class, native-American, gay, cis woman born with only one hand vs. a poor, white, straight, cis, teenage boy with ADHD, it’s much thornier, and ultimately not an important comparison to make.

    When people speak of white privilege, they are saying that a white person lives generally unencumbered by their race and how others perceive them because of it. They are, in aggregate, less likely to be pulled over or stopped by police. They are more likely to get job interviews, and to be seen as a good potential hire by those interviewing them.

    For male privilege, it means being more likely to be seen as leadership material, less likelihood of being sexually assaulted, a probability of higher lifetime earnings, and less chance of having one’s ailments dismissed by doctors, or of being passed over for a promotion because you might someday get pregnant and need maternity leave.

    Every axis of privilege is different, they are not particularly cross-comparable, and they are all just probabilities - none are deterministic. Some types of privilege are fairly inherent (class, health/ability), while others are based on how our society treats people differently based on group affiliation (race, sex, gender, sexuality). The point of identifying these is not to shame those who have privilege, but rather to recognize the various difficulties faced by those who are less privileged, so that we might mitigate those challenges. In a just world, everyone would be treated as though they were a member of the privileged group(s) along every axis, and judged only by their own actions.







  • Exactly this - if I don’t know you personally well enough to know that you “of course” would never support republicans, then I have no way to tell from which direction you are attacking the Dems.

    Once we reached a point where it was no longer safe to assume that Nazi shit and overt racism, bigotry, etc. was sarcastic, we all had to stop assuming that anyone knew we were better than that. That’s also when /s tags became absolutely necessary again, even when saying some absolutely bonkers shit. I long for the days when I could safely assume that no one was that stupid, and that they would assume I wasn’t either.




  • Because it’s of course totally impossible for me to have a personal stake in the well being of trans people without being one myself, right. There’s no way there could be other people in my life already feeling the damage done by this administration…

    I’m also a lifelong atheist, and very much opposed to religion playing any part in government affairs. If I refused to vote for any politician that invoked god on the campaign trail, I’d have never voted in 25+ years of adulthood. Regardless of what the issue is, refusing to vote for the better/less harmful candidate means prioritizing your own emotional self-satisfaction over the well being of those most directly affected (whether that includes you or not). It might feel good and righteous to take such a stand, but it’s a trap.

    It would be mansplaining for me to try to tell you how to feel about these candidates, or about the experience of being betrayed by the “better” party - I’m not here to do that, nor would I have any right to. I’m saying that however you feel, you shouldn’t let your feelings determine your vote. That shitty candidate that cares more about getting elected than about your rights will never know why you didn’t vote for them (in fact they are likely to guess the opposite), and you’ll be stuck with the one who revels in causing you pain. Please don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the bad if the only other option is the downright monstrous.


  • I don’t believe that most politicians of either party actually give a fuck about women’s sports in general - they certainly never have before this issue came up. For cowardly democrats on the anti-trans side of the sports issue, they simply see this as a way to avoid appearing too “woke” to independents and conservative democrats, while only directly affecting the handful of mtf athletes among their constituents.

    I fully agree that most trans folk and their loved ones would gladly cede the sports issue in exchange for some real protections - I certainly would.

    I’m not saying that these anti-trans democrats are trustworthy; I’m saying they are motivated by poll numbers, not personal animosity. Losing won’t motivate them to do better unless they lose to someone with better values - that’s why we can teach them lessons in the primaries but not in the general election. If they lose in the general, the lesson they will take is that they weren’t conservative enough, so withholding your vote at that point is counter-productive.

    The republicans want to pass bills that will make life overtly harder for trans folk, beyond sports and even bathroom use. The priority right now is to take away their majorities in the House and Senate, so that those bills can’t even be brought to the floor for a vote. Beyond that we have to hold them accountable during their term, and we can primary them next time around. There is no situation in which withholding votes from Democrats in the general results in better outcomes for trans people.