pwdisswordfishd

Re:Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits on Friday May 02, 2025 @05:13PM (#43874639)

Have you read "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" by philosopher Thomas Nagel?

Re:BBC Sound Effects Library on Wednesday September 25, 2024 @08:45AM (#41646799)

https://sound-effects.bbcrewind.co.uk/search?q=NHU05002129

If you ever wanted to know what a farting chimp sounds like, here's the record.

Re:The muscular imagination of Iain M. Banks: a future you might want on Monday September 09, 2024 @07:03AM (#41487289)

> Can't remember which novel but in one of them it was made clear most of the population was trans

Yes but that was a population that could actually completely change sex in terms of biological function, using futuristic technology to do so.

So not really the same as the contemporary idea of "trans" which is just cosmetic changes to approximately mimic the opposite sex.

Re:Open Source AI Is the Path Forward on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @01:59PM (#41048932)

Makes me wonder why he's really doing this. Zuckerberg being Zuckerberg, it can't be out of any genuine sense of altruism. Probably just wants to crush all competitors before he monetizes the next generation of Meta AI.

Re:Research into trans medicine has been manipulated on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @02:42AM (#41043208)

The Republican aversion to "trans" is the type that's built around promoting conservative gender roles, and is only a small part of the bigger picture of opposition.

It's different in other countries. In the UK, for instance, most of the pushback has been from grassroots feminist organizations who point to the misogyny and sexism that's been enabled and promoted by "gender identity" beliefs being woven into policy and law.

We do see it being challenged in this way the US too, from the left, e.g.

- https://karadansky.substack.com/p/why-i-think-were-much-furt...

> Ideology of trans?

The regressive belief that women and men are defined as "gender identities" rather than based upon the material biological reality of sex.

> And speaking of mutations, bravo on twisting my statement on homophobia into some squirrelly critique that justifies your fears.

It's not fear, this is reality. A couple of examples of this homophobia:

- https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/03/trans-activists-shu...

- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385

> but is ultimately on the wrong side of history.

I doubt it. The right side of history surely cannot be one that destroys every female space and erases homosexuality in the name of "progress".

Re:Wiz walks away from $23B deal with Google on Tuesday July 23, 2024 @02:24AM (#41043078)

This sounds uselessly crippled, as it's not going to catch malware that doesn't drop anything to disk, or that adequately cleans up after itself if it does.

Re:Research into trans medicine has been manipulated on Monday July 22, 2024 @08:30PM (#41041309)

There's not really a unified "anti-trans movement", as different people have different reasons for opposing this.

Like for instance you mention homophobia:

> that the previous anti movement (homophobia) has effectively failed

But one of these reasons for rejecting the ideology of "trans" is because it's homophobic.

Consider the conventional understanding of homosexuality: a sexual orientation directed exclusively towards others of the same sex. The "trans" belief system overwrites this definition to instead be those who are attracted only to others with the same "gender identity".

This means that a "trans woman" (male sex) who is only interested in "cis women" (female sex) would be a lesbian by this new definition - which effectively erases homosexuality in its original understanding, by including heterosexuals. In this case straight males.

In the past few years, LGB organizations have been springing up to counter this new type of homophobia. Often driven by or allying with feminists, who have their own set of reasons to be critical of "trans".