zeezee

Just FYI Curve founder, ceo and part private owner Shachar Bialick currently living in London, was born in Tel Aviv and brought up in the settlement city of Ariel, in the occupied West Bank.

He also served for three years in the IDF which he thanks for giving him "grit and perseverance, which are clear factors for success in business."[1]

I believe nuanced discourse is very important - especially when it comes to children and their safety.

With that said I can't help but think this author despite (seemingly) in support of trans people - has written a fair few articles that go against trans inclusion and none for. Again that's fair and everyone is entitled to their opinion (even when written with the authority of a national paper)

What I find strange however, is the inherit contradictions of the authors overall position.

Let's take the OP article for example - it argues that blockers and hormones should not be prescribed to children unless there's a lengthy process to determine if that's the best course of action - which may or may not be valid. However, in another article the same author also argues "Every spot taken by someone with a male athletic advantage is an opportunity closed to a female rival." and again platforming "I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete" - which on their own seem sensible but when you put both positions together the argument becomes "kids shouldn't transition and adults that have gone through agab puberty shouldn't play competitive sports therefore trans people just shouldn't be in sports period" - which I feel is a much harder position to defend on it's own (something something motte and bailey)

I guess I'm saying that yes we should have nuanced discourse but maybe your best messengers for this discourse shouldn't also be saying “In this climate, who would challenge someone with a beard exposing their penis in a women’s changing room?”

Your words create images and those can be more powerful than the meaning you may or may not intend behind them - so a better analogy would have been something like moths to a flame, which both would fit better the concept of being drawn to something and would have avoided the likening of people with rats that are being led to drown in a river (and rats like trans people are pretty cool and don't deserve to be killed en masse)

Why would people tell trans people "this is your flag" if not for commercial reasons?

I'd ask in return which people do you think are telling trans people that it's their flag? The flag was created in the 90s by a trans person and then got picked up by other trans people since they liked it enough.

Still, are there massive issues with rainbow capitalism and the commercialization of everything? (like ikea and the blåhaj in this very post?) Absolutely. And yes in the current climate trans (and generally queer) visibility (as eg. Lily Alexander points out) can indeed be quite dangerous.

Does this mean we should reject any and all "solidarity" from them? I don't think so, as in I'd much rather capitalists cater to queer folk (even if we know it's all just bottom line thinking) than not consider us at all - while we collectively stay aware as to why they're doing it (also as we've seen they make really good canaries for when fascists show up and all the pink washing gets bleached)

Also to me it does appear that it's working - most trans folk I know are against this - sure you'll still get some that will become brand enjoyers/defenders but you'll also notice how Lemmy as a left-leaning vocally anti-capitalist space is teeming with LGBTQ people - those are not just coincidences.

So yeah we both agree that there is a pervasive undercurrent that is exploiting queer (and het) people - and had you come in good faith commenting how you think ikea is exploiting the meme and the community to make more money I doubt you'd have gotten the same reception - but the way you phrased it you made it seem like it's trans people's fault for being exploited - instead we should focus on capitalism as the root cause and how we come together for the liberation of everyone instead of infighting over whose flag is more commercialized.

I can maybe explain - blue is traditionally a color that is associated with boys, pink is a color that is traditionally associated with girls, white is a full spectrum color that represents the gender diversity outside those two.

Obviously the idea isn't to limit people to boxes but making a simple yet commonly understandable sign that represents something as complex as gender identity can be quite tricky so compromises tend to be made.

Also, weren't you the person that said:

If [marginalized communities] don’t feel comfortable, then more questions need to be asked as to why

So then can I ask why did you think comparing trans people to rats led by a piped piper was the way to engage the community if your goal was to promote understanding and inclusivity?

He gave me his badge number. “I’m going to need more than that,” I said. “I have no reason to believe that any of what you’re saying is real.”

“I completely understand,” he said calmly. He told me to go to the FTC home page and look up the main phone number. “Now hang up the phone, and I will call you from that number right now.” I did as he said. The FTC number flashed on my screen, and I picked up.

“How do I know you’re not just spoofing this?” I asked. “It’s a government number,” he said, almost indignant. “It cannot be spoofed.” I wasn’t sure if this was true and tried Googling it, but Michael was already onto his next point.

Yeah actually phoning the number would have been the best - I guess that's why they bombard you with instructions so you don't have much time to stop and think

The man on the phone knew my home address, my Social Security number, the names of my family members, and that my 2-year-old son was playing in our living room

idk - when somebody knows all your personal information, says they're monitoring you and is actively telling you that you and your family are in danger - being rational is very difficult - it may not seem that way in hindsight but everyone thinks only a moron falls for scams until you're the one that gets suckered

I read that self-laceration is typical; half of victims blame themselves for being gullible, and most experience serious anxiety, depression, or other stress-related health problems afterward. I heard about victim support groups. I went to therapy.

“Everyone was so patronizing,” she told me. “The response was basically ‘It’s your fault that this happened.’”

Also yeah blaming victims sure is helpful...

"Our work also offers guidance on how messages should be constructed to be effectively delivered to a target audience, by carefully considering their existing beliefs,"

For example, we want to understand why a community might quickly embrace a new sustainable farming practice, while another, with different core beliefs about traditional methods, might strongly resist it."

Hmm I meant their goals seem noble but I still feel strange about building a belief space that can be used to more easily influence people towards certain outcomes

meh I honestly kind of like it - I especially think the intersex symbol ties it together really well

US for all it's shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran

As I said: "that's an easy position to hold when you're on the side with all the nukes..."

I'm just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it's own weight.

Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.

Obviously I'm not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I'm saying that by manufacturing consent for the "war on terror" the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what's happening in Ukraine)

So I'm arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.

And if you're claiming that "Everyone's in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes." but "Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists" is "hardly a war" - then you're either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you're saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.

I feel we may not be understanding each other so I'll present my argument and you present yours?

My point is: The G7's hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.

Again, the UK (MI6 on behalf of British Petroleum) were one of the key players in carrying out the coup against Mosaddegh and despite the whole Brexit thing the UK is still very much part of Europe.

Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that's currently happening.

Also this^ is obviously nonsensical when we're commenting under a post about how the major European powers are 100% backing Israel and condemning Iran in an escalation that was started by Israel - which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what's happening?

As for the alliance between Iran and Russia - yeah it sucks - I'd much rather them be aligned with us but I can't blame them when they've been historically exploited by the west so they turn to the enemy of my enemy as their friend.

Maybe if western proxy states (Israel) were to stop bombing them under the pretext of Iran being months away from nuclear weapons for the past 30 years it would be possible to have more civil relations and be less aligned with Russia.

Now you may think it's too late for that - which I understand - but then you must also recognize that at that point you're calling for the military annihilation of either side - which is an easy position to hold when you're on the side with all the nukes...

I've heard the R standing for Regressive since there's nothing rad about being a bigot