Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 30 2019, @11:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the renaming-for-the-nanny-state dept.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/28/gimp_open_source_image_editor_forked_to_fix_problematic_name/

(Emphasis in original. --Ed.)

GIMP is a longstanding project, first announced in November 1995. The name was originally an acronym for General Image Manipulation Program but this was changed to GNU Image Manipulation Program.

The new fork springs from a discussion on Gitlab, where the source code is hosted. The discussion has been hidden but is available on web archives here. A topic titled "Consider renaming GIMP to a less offensive name," opened by developer Christopher Davis, stated:

I'd like to propose renaming GIMP, due to the baggage behind the name. The most modern and often used version of the word "gimp" is an ableist insult. This is also the colloquial usage of the word. In addition to the pain of the definition, there's also the marketability issue. Acronyms are difficult to remember, and they end up pronounced instead of read as their parts. "GIMP" does not give a hint towards the function of the app, and it's hard to market something that's either used as an insult or a sex reference.

[...] The subject of the suitability of the name is not new, and is enshrined in the official FAQ:

"I don't like the name GIMP. Will you change it?"

With all due respect, no. We've been using the name GIMP for more than 20 years and it's widely known ... on top of that, we feel that in the long run, sterilization of language will do more harm than good. ... Finally, if you still have strong feelings about the name "GIMP", you should feel free to promote the use of the long form GNU Image Manipulation Program or maintain your own releases of the software under a different name.

The Glimpse project is therefore entirely within the spirit of open source. "We believe free software should be accessible to everyone, and in this case a re-brand is both a desirable and very straightforward fix that could attract a whole new generation of users and contributors," says the About page.

Is now the time to accept that, to get GIMP into the mainstream, it needs a rename?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Saturday August 31 2019, @02:24AM (32 children)

    by Kell (292) on Saturday August 31 2019, @02:24AM (#888056)

    What's your problem with transgender people? Most of the ones I know a ok. I get that the bluehaired feminist brigade is often shrill, but in my experience they seem to have it in for everyone with a dick, transwomen included.

    As for catladies... well, I love my cat. If you're judging someone because of the joy that owning a pet (or even a few pets!) brings, I feel sorry for you. Maybe you should try loving something?

    --
    Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Saturday August 31 2019, @03:08AM (3 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday August 31 2019, @03:08AM (#888071)

    Cats are cool. Have been owned by cats, wouldn't object to being adopted by another and it could happen. We currently have a 'crazy catlady' down the block who feeds any cat who shows up and the neighborhood of course has an abundance. A couple of times one decided our house is home. Cats as substitutes for children, not so much. Same for doggos, btw but the stereotype is catladies for a reason.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @04:01AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @04:01AM (#888092)

      Cats as substitutes for children, not so much.

      If someone doesn't want kids, which is perfectly fine, they shouldn't have them. That's for both their sake and the sake of their potential children. And, if someone doesn't want kids but does want cats or other pets, they realize that pets and kids are different; if they were the same, they wouldn't want pets either, since that would defeat the whole purpose of not having kids.

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 31 2019, @07:41AM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 31 2019, @07:41AM (#888152) Journal
        So if a couple can't have children they can give birth to cats? I don't think it works that way....
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @09:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @09:22PM (#888316)

        What happens though, is that a woman may be childless, whether by choice or something out of her control. They then get a cat, and without meaning too.. 'nest', and treat the cat as a child. And end up with cat after cat, too.

        It's not really a choice thing, cat women seem to be right on the edge of, or perhaps one foot into a mental illness. Maybe these circumstances resulted in the 'cat lady' coming out in them, or what not.

  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 31 2019, @03:18AM (25 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 31 2019, @03:18AM (#888078) Homepage Journal

    It's a safe bet that anyone the blue-haired, privileged, little college-girl feminists claim to be championing for are a hell of a lot more pleasant to be around than the blue-haired, privileged, little college-girl feminists are. Hell, even the soyboi beta pussies that they string along but won't touch because they're secretly fucking guys like EF are tolerable compared to those cunts.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Kell on Saturday August 31 2019, @06:03AM (24 children)

      by Kell (292) on Saturday August 31 2019, @06:03AM (#888121)

      I think we can agree that professional victims are in no way reflective of the communities they claim to represent. Kinda pisses me off, though, when people besmirch women and LGBT people on the basis of the behaviour of a few bad eggs over whom those communities have zero control. Ironically, its the femnazis who need to be deplatformed if just so the sensible people who care about gender equality and diversity can stop being mistaken for them.

      --
      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday August 31 2019, @06:49AM (18 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Saturday August 31 2019, @06:49AM (#888134)

        the sensible people who care about gender equality and diversity can stop being mistaken for them.

        Lemme just stop you there and question your premise.

        Define "Gender Equality."

        WHY is gender equality desirable?

        Define "Diversity."

        WHY is diversity desirable?

        Not taking a position yet, lets hear your explanation first. Do you have one, are you just reciting the litany of the Most Holy Church of Progress without understanding?

        • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday August 31 2019, @11:37AM (1 child)

          by Pino P (4721) on Saturday August 31 2019, @11:37AM (#888185) Journal

          First, would you agree with the following premise?
          "It is desirable that people be able to support their survival without becoming a drain on the welfare system or the criminal justice system."

          Once you agree with that:
          Policies promoting diversity in the labor force create demand for the labor of people in marginalized groups so that they may support themselves. They also ensure that companies' product development incorporates the views of people in marginalized groups, as a way of ensuring that their specific needs are met. These needs can vary substantially, particularly with respect to personal care products.

          • (Score: 2) by Kell on Saturday August 31 2019, @12:56PM

            by Kell (292) on Saturday August 31 2019, @12:56PM (#888204)

            This is actually a really good answer - I agree with everything that was said here. I will, however, give my own as well below.

            --
            Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Saturday August 31 2019, @01:18PM (15 children)

          by Kell (292) on Saturday August 31 2019, @01:18PM (#888208)

          I will give you definitions first since you asked and then I will give my thoughts on the desirability of diversity.

          Gender equality - equality of opportunity. Here specifically, the goal of the elimination of discrimination based on gender. A woman should not be stopped from being a truck driver if she can make the grade, a man should not be stopped from being a nurse if he can pass the tests, and neither of their careers should be be adversely effected by their gender. A person should succeed or fail solely on their own performative merits - what they can do, rather than what they are.

          Diversity - the condition of difference. Here specifically, the aspects of gender difference from the norm, be it intersex, non-binary, transgender, genderfluid or agender.

          Asking why diversity is desirable is similar to asking why difference is desirable. On some level I imagine it is not - many gender diverse people would probably tell you that being trans or intersex sucks, especially since society is generally not geared to accept or support it. However, these people exist whether we like it or not. So whether or not diversity is desirable, it is nevertheless desirable that diversity be tolerated. It is an axiom of human rights ethics that all people have individual worth, irrespective of the conditions of their birth (even criminals have rights and innate value by virtue of being human). Thus, it is my position that the principle of gender equality should be applied to those whose gender expression is atypical, and that as a society we make the extrinsic social costs of being different minimal. Whether we consider diverse gender identities to be "valid" within our philosophies, we nevertheless have no business curtailing their opportunities on the basis of it.

          Does that answer your questions?

          --
          Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @06:56PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @06:56PM (#888285)

            Gender equality - equality of opportunity. Here specifically, the goal of the elimination of discrimination based on gender. A woman should not be stopped from being a truck driver if she can make the grade, a man should not be stopped from being a nurse if he can pass the tests, and neither of their careers should be be adversely effected by their gender. A person should succeed or fail solely on their own performative merits - what they can do, rather than what they are.

            Not like this then? [theguardian.com] Only an "Anti-Discrimination Board" could actively discriminate on the basis of sex and break anti-discrimination law with impunity while claiming to be doing the opposite. Outright psychopathy!

            • (Score: 2) by Kell on Sunday September 01 2019, @01:56AM

              by Kell (292) on Sunday September 01 2019, @01:56AM (#888370)

              Correct - I want equality, not an advantage. The subtlety is often lost on people. This is the foundation of my gripe against the aforementioned blue-haired femnazi brigade.

              --
              Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday August 31 2019, @10:03PM (12 children)

            by jmorris (4844) on Saturday August 31 2019, @10:03PM (#888324)

            hose are a lot more reasonable definitions than most use. On Gender Equality, you don't seem to be wanting equality of results, only of opportunity. Which is a lot closer to being compatible with objective reality. Most now use "Equality" to demand equality of results. Equality of result is undesirable since it requires forcing people to do things they don't want to do. On all sides. There aren't many objections when the a few men are nurses, the rest of the nurses generally benefit from having a few guys around with the additional physical strength for tasks requiring it and the generally better ability to subdue an out of control patient, etc. But nobody sane thinks we will ever see 50% of nursing slots filled by men without oppression, openly forcing women out of nursing school and forcing men into the profession, somehow. Same for women who want to be truck drivers or write device drivers, except there really isn't as much real difference, we are already at a point where a woman pulling a truck into a loading dock is pretty much unremarkable. Yet not nearly as many women will apply to truck driving school, and that is ok. So allowing everyone an opportunity to enter any profession on merit is socially desirable, forced equality is not. Setting 'goals' that act as effective quotas is not desirable. Because men and women are not interchangeable economic units of production and it is bad social policy to declare it a goal to make them so.

            So why are using "Gender Equality?" Adopting that term feeds the political power of people you do not appear to support. Try using "Equal Opportunity" perhaps?

            Interesting that your definition of "Diversity" seems entirely gender and LGBTQPP++ focused and ignores race. Curious. But ok, lets take that and go with it. First off lets note the historical perspective. Up until the Progressive Era started in the early 20th Century, none of the things you think important existed. Pretty much not at all, outside a rare case in a mental institution. Again, interesting to note you seem to be following $current_year pretty closely in that you moved entirely past ordinary gay (which does actually exist), concerned only for these new made up 'boutique' mental malfunctions.

            So lets examine our two approaches. I say that it is still just mental illness, we see more of it because society and the mass media are encouraging it and because we are a dying civilization, that history tells us this always happens at the end. If we treated them the same as we treat the rest of the increased mental illness spreading from the insanity of our dying civilization, the afflicted would have far better outcomes. Because we are currently lying to them, especially the transsexuals. We tell them they are stunning and brave, that they should allow unethical doctors to experiment on them, they end up mutilated horrors and a full 40% of them commit suicide as they realize what has been done to them. Gender dysphoria is a recognized condition, but there are in fact two approaches to treatment possible. One is help them, by either drugs or traditional therapy, to change their mind to match the body they were born with, the other is to attempt to make the physical body match the damaged mind. But medical science can't actually do the physical change thing, so why in the name of all that is Holy do we lie to people and say we can? Lying is wrong.

            Your preference seems to be to tell them they are all stunning and brave and demand the sane pretend the insane are the normal ones, that we upend all of civilization and existing cultural practice to embrace the madness, so that our children can be groomed and converted into more monsters. And as the victims of your 'concern' commit suicide you are, at the most, only inspired to virtue signal harder. 40%. Might I suggest you meditate on that number until you achieve enlightenment.

            But this last line is a choice cut:

            Whether we consider diverse gender identities to be "valid" within our philosophies, we nevertheless have no business curtailing their opportunities on the basis of it.

            Yet you folks have no problem at all curtailing the businesses of the sane or traditionally religious in your demands to "Bake the f*cking cake, bigot. Or else." So yes you do seem quite comfortable with declaring some philosophies invalid. If you say everyone is entitled to their opinion, so long as it agrees with yours, it is kinda a nullity. Total moral inversion. Which is why I know we are going to go Boom!, because while history doesn't repeat it does rhyme and you can dance to the beat.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Sunday September 01 2019, @02:35AM (11 children)

              by Kell (292) on Sunday September 01 2019, @02:35AM (#888377)

              I used the term gender equality because it speaks to a larger thing than just opportunity - it also encompasses aspects of social equality in terms of respect for a woman's bodily rights in healthcare (eg. abortion), parental rights, and so on. The bluehaired brigade is also engaged in active histrionics there. Equal opportunity is a part of gender equality, but as you mentioned equal opportunity also comes into elements of race and ableism and so on. Your comment that "gender equality feeds political power of people I don't support" is exactly the problem I'm complaining about - their rubbish is so associated with the issues themselves that it is hard to talk about the issues without someone assuming you are one of them. It makes it even more important for me to use the terms correctly and often.

              I'm from Australia. Race is not really a thing here, so I don't think about it much. I'm actually quite disturbed by the fact that americans have to bring it into everything they talk about. Especially intersectionalists - suddenly everything you talk about becomes racial. Honestly, women's periods and pregnancy don't care what race you are, but god help you on some forums if you don't take special time to mention WOC. We pick the battles that matter to us, I guess?

              I'm a bit confused that you seem to be reading in some idea that I'm a follower of trends in social justice. My interest in gender diversity and such stretches back to 1998, when my best friend in came out to me as transgender. It started a long process of me educating myself about the issues so I could learn how to support her. I, myself, am bisexual (which I figured out a few years after that) and I have been involved in the queer community and lesbian women for almost 20 years. But yeah, clearly I'm a follower of recent trends. No, I think you'll find that the stuff people have been talking about in feminism has been going on for a good 50 years and only recently has there been a thing like twitter or whatever to put it on the radar of wider society. Oh, and as a bisexual woman, who has been in a relationship with a woman in the past, I can assure you that the work is not complete. Marriage equality didn't suddenly, magically end discrimination against gay and bisexual people.

              In regards to gender diversity being 'made up mental malfunctions', I would direct you to this presentation [youtube.com] on the biochemistry of transgender conditions, by Will Powers. The interesting observation is that gender-related structural differences in a transgender patient are reflective of a patient's identified gender, even prior to undertaking hormones or other treatment. Furthermore, the biochemistry transgender patients can be clearly linked to known hormonal abnormalities and mutations related to gene expression and endocrinology. You can literally see these things on blood tests. So 'boutique' aside, the science on this is well-established and it is simply disingenuous to go around saying these conditions are made up.

              This '40% of transwomen commit suicide post-surgery' thing is such an amazing dogwhistle, but it does not reflect my observations at all. I've had the pleasure of knowing about 100 or so transwomen and four transmen. Of those, two of them were killed by assailants, and none have committed suicide. While this is a mix of people I know internationally, the vast majority are Australian where treatment is much more available than elsewhere. If you think that is selection bias, then I agree - it's almost as if having access to readily available healthcare helps people cope with life. I am not surprised that elsewhere queer people find it harder - and I imagine that just because one has gender surgery or a man comes out as gay, life doesn't suddenly get magically easier - and people in queer communities certainly have to deal with shit. I'm not surprised that some can't handle it, but as I said my observations suggest that in places like Australia the 40% figure is not reflective of reality.

              See now, your final paragraph here brings us full circle:

              Yet you folks...

              This entire subthread started because I am tired of being mistaken for "those folks". There is a difference between firing someone because you discover she has a girlfriend, and forcing someone to perform labour for free. There is a difference between refusing to hire someone whose credentials exceed those of other candidates just because she's trans, and enforcing hiring quotas. You have leapt huge mountains of logic to make the assumption that I equate the two, when I have been very, very clear about these distinctions. If you wish to paint everyone who disagrees with you as some sort of trendy zealot, that's your business - but I have been more than happy to share my reasoning with you here. I would appreciate it if you would actually respond to the reasoning provided, rather than your assumption about what my reasoning entails based on the behaviour of other people.

              --
              Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
              • (Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Sunday September 01 2019, @07:00AM (10 children)

                by jmorris (4844) on Sunday September 01 2019, @07:00AM (#888409)

                Ah, Australia. That explains much. But don't worry, your leaders are intent on "Culturally enriching" your country too. Soon race will dominate your local politics and you will understand Intersectionality. Vox Day's formula is un-PC but correct: Diversity + Proximity = War. Tribal politics at first, then the more active sort.

                How did I know abortion was pretty much the extent of interest in "woman's health." That much is the same here. I swear, what is this fetish about killing babies that raises it to Holy Sacrament? Not wanting to get too sidetracked though, just say the premise of the debate on BOTH sides is defective, which is why the arguments won't end. As for parental rights, don't know the state of things down under, but here that fight was "won" by your team decades ago, women get everything if they pop out a baby, married or not. It is the inspiration for the MGTOW movement, the realization it is a no-win scenario for men.

                And no, ain't sitting through a two hour sermon by a monster who mutilates people as he tries to rationalize it. Notice you ducked the big question. If gender dysphoria is real, and books from before it became a political football agree it is a real but rare thing, what is the best path to treatment? If the body and mind disagree, do you modify the mind, which can be done in at least some cases, or attempt to modify the body, which has not ever been done successfully? You know and work with them, can you point to ONE successful "transition?" Not even to the point of working reproductive organs, that is obviously decades away at best, just passable to casual inspection. Don't think the literature does either. The books (older unpurged ones at least) do record successful treatments (by drugs and therapy, often combined) to make the mind more closely agree with the body. The activists, like all activists, only want their issue to be bigger, better funded and create more virtue to wrap themselves in, that means they want more broken people to advocate for. But is it better for the people being advocated for? So stop being an activist for a moment and try being the follower of the scientific method you claim in your sig. Which one is more likely to help the patient, the hard path or the impossible one?

                And remember, it ain't just about the few, how much damage are we doing to society in general with this obsession? Yeah, sometimes the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the one. Reality is. Here in the U.S. we are just starting to let trans into woman's bathrooms and already have several incidents involving children. How many little girls do we throw on the altar of Moloch to make a few activists and deeply troubled people a little less unhappy? And now they want to 'diagnose' children and mutilate them, just write off a few thousand more children to Moloch? Yeah it sucks for actual LGBTQP+ people. I get that. It sucks for a lot of people too, people born without limbs, the blind, etc. God kills kittens and little babies too, why is one of those questions way above my pay grade. It is good that we try to accommodate everyone within fairly broad limits but we also don't have to sacrifice many children to assist the blind, wealth is easy to sacrifice in the wealthy west, but a civilization that will sacrifice children deserves to exit the stage.

                That really is my bottom line. Yes we should try to integrate as many people as possible into being productive citizens. Yes we should try to avoid putting up unneeded roadblocks to people doing their own thing, living their own life as they feel is best so long as they aren't harming others. But that should not be unlimited, it should not require the many to sacrifice liberty for the often delusional and unfixable grudges and mental aberrations of the few. And sometimes that even means saying the person with the best paper qualifications not only doesn't get the job but must not.

                For example women in combat is delusion that can only be maintained in a society that hasn't known war in too long and has forgotten eternal truths of warfare. 99% of women can't physically qualify anyway without rewriting the standards but even that 1% should be refused for the sake of maintaining military readiness. One could argue whether other jobs, such as firefighter, is it worth the disruption to allow the small number of women who could really pass the physical requirements to serve. Solid arguments could be mounted either way, but it should be debatable rationally. Currently it can't, and that is a problem.

                It would be a better world if people could be more honest about these things, speak openly instead of in code and fear. So in response to your final statement, yes, all things being equal a trans should be equally hireable. But in $current_year a smart manager should find a rationale to cull them as early as possible. Not because they are trans[1], but because they should be culling on obvious signs of SJWs and almost all trans would get culled by that criteria. Hiring any SJW is the fastest way to ruin a workplace of any sort, not only will they destroy morale, they instantly attempt to influence hiring policy to pull more of their fellows in. The risk of legal problems is off the chart since they are uniformly litigious. But again, anyone with any hiring authority can't even think that sort of thought except in their darkest hidden mind because of the climate of fear SJWs have created. Which is why every workplace eventually gets a blue-haired catlady (i.e. SJW) in charge of their HR dept and things go to crap. Big advantage for small business vs big business so there is that upside.

                And yeah, the suicide numbers are bad. Check this advocacy group blowing squid ink trying to rebut:

                https://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm [transadvocate.com]

                Don't worry, it won't take two hours even if you click through to some of the material they are trying so hard to rebut. :) They try but the squid ink is just too much not to notice. The closest they manage to an actual argument is proposing an 'interpretation' of the results to say the surgery doesn't increase the suicide rate that much, that preops are almost as prone to suicide. Not a good argument really, as that too points to my assertion that encouraging them to live against their physical reality is harmful and if taken serious just says blowing a lot of taxpayer money on surgery is a waste. Nah, I'll take the advice of a guy at John Hopkins who was involved in a lot of "reassignment" cases and stopped when he realized he was violating his Oath to do no harm.

                [1] The high correlation between LGBTQ+ and high functioning IT skills is pretty visible and probably a real thing. But is even a rockstar worth that much probable drama? An apolitical trans with mad skillz and even basic people skills would be the ultimate unicorn to get. But accidentally hiring Coraline Ada would be certain doom.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Sunday September 01 2019, @08:57AM (8 children)

                  by Kell (292) on Sunday September 01 2019, @08:57AM (#888423)

                  Wow, these messages are getting longer and longer. Ah well - it's worth discussing.

                  Re. Australia and race politics... eh. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "culturally enriching" but we've been multicultural since the 80s and it has been a uniformally good thing. Kebab shops, chinese and japanese food places. We've been pretty free of racial trouble for the most part. If you ask a typical Australian I think you'd find we just don't give a shit about where someone is from, as long as they have something tasty. Delicious food is one of those places where diversity most definitely is good!

                  How did I know abortion was pretty much the extent of interest in "woman's health."

                  Do you mean the extent of my interest in woman's health? Because I'm most certainly interested in providing and maintaining reliable sources of breast cancer screening, birth control, pap smears, hormones for post-menopause, IVF, prenatal screening and a whole host of other things that people assume are just readily available, but which have been fought for over the last 30 years. Even now, there is a difficulty in getting access to certain implantable hormones for women over 50 because insurance companies and the PBS don't want to pay for older women. Abortion is a hot-button topic, but it most certainly is only the pointy end of the wedge.

                  Since you ask, I'll talk about abortion and why it's important. No, it's not a religious thing (at least for me, I'm quite secular), but it is both contested and critical to the well-being of women and society. Firstly there is the economic impact of being pregnant and raising a child that few young couples (or single mothers) can well afford, especially if she has yet to complete her education. Ending a pregnancy early allows her to safely continue her life and plans, rather than leaving the workforce and becoming a dependent on family or welfare. Women who are facing economic ruin because of a pregnancy can become extremely desperate to terminate. This leads to point two: without access to safe, medical abortion, desperate women seek back-alley abortions or attempt to terminate by themselves, which results in maimed and dead women. You talk a lot about "purged history", but we have very good records about the catastrophe that was amateur terminations in the 1900s through 1970s. Removing access to abortions does not stop women aborting, it simply forces them to put their lives at risk instead. Thirdly, there are edge cases where a pregnancy may be the result of incest or rape. The elimination of abortion services can potentially made it illegal or impossible for victims of these situations to end their pregnancies. Fourthly, people forget that pregnancy is dangerous - women die during pregnancy and childbirth, especially if conditions are not ideal. Often, these conditions can be recognised early enough to allow an early abortion to reduce the risk to the woman. Why should a woman be forced to continue a risky pregnancy, where often the outcome for the fetus may be certain death or disablement? Finally, abortion is important because it directly cuts to the heart of a woman's personal bodily autonomy. When you tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body then you accept that (viz the cake issue) someone can be forced to undergo pregnancy against their wish. Is it acceptable that a woman may refuse food until she miscarries? Should she be forced to eat to sustain the fetus?

                  by your team

                  Yeah, seriously - I don't have a team. You can keep saying I do, but it doesn't change reality. I'm the only one who can attest to what my views actually are, and making these assertions does you no credit. To wit, it might surprise you to know that my position of gender equity also supports men's parental rights. I believe that men should have equal rights before the law in terms of custody of children (and all other matters). It should not matter what gender a parent is, only their demonstrated capacity to care for their children. I presume I don't need to explain to you why men having equal rights under the law is a good thing.

                  To save you having to listen through 2 hours of informative discourse on biochemistry, just jump to 6:39 [youtu.be] in the video. If you're not willing to listen to evidence presented to you because it conflicts with your views, and you insist on calling doctors and specialists who work in this field "monsters" without actually looking at the underlying science, then it's hard to have an informed debate. Simply put, biochemistry and neurology disagrees with you. I invite you to consider all evidence presented to you.

                  I'm not sure which question you think I've ducked (please reference which part of your previous discourse it is and I'll give you an answer). I try to be transparent and to discuss in good faith. If I've missed answering something, then I assure you it is an accidental oversight and not an intentional omission.

                  If gender dysphoria is real, and books from before it became a political football agree it is a real but rare thing, what is the best path to treatment?

                  Interestingly, this is answered in that 2 hour video you didn't want to watch (I really do recommend it). It's pretty comprehensive about contemporary treatments for transgender patients. I am not an endocrinologist nor a transgender specialist, so honestly I can't tell give you a professional opinion here. I can tell you that how it's normally done is a combination of hormone blockers with HRT, which is correlated with improved mood and feeling in the patient, maintained over a long period of time until it reaches equilibrium. If the patient feels it is needed or they experience continuing dysphoria, then surgery might be contemplated. There is an assumption that surgery is the major or first intervention, but I assure that is not the case from my experience with transgender women. Of the 100 or so I know, only about 10 have had bottom surgery.

                  or attempt to modify the body, which has not ever been done successfully

                  I don't know what your criteria for "successfully" is, but holy smokes there are transwomen who are smoking hot (and make me crazy jealous!) I've personally seen the surgical results of several transwomen to whom I've been close, and they are identical to my own factory-issue vagina. I've met transwomen with bigger tits than I have! If those women aren't successful, then you're simply being unrealistic about what you demand.

                  an you point to ONE successful "transition?" Not even to the point of working reproductive organs, that is obviously decades away at best, just passable to casual inspection

                  Hah, ok. My husband just asked me what I was laughing at some hard. Yeah, look, you've almost certainly met people in your day to day life who are trans and who you would -never- know were trans if they didn't tell you. My transgender friend from highschool once got thrown out of a transgender meeting because nobody would believe she was trans! People at my wedding asked me why I changed my maid of honour at the last minute, because I'd told them my transgender friend was doing it - they had no idea that was her. I've met a handful of women who don't and will probably never pass, but the rest? I can show you not one, but dozens and dozens and dozens of amazing women you would -never- know were trans. The outdated conception of transwomen being a "stubbly dude in a dress" is simply wrong.

                  /comment too long - lameness filter encountered... to be continued in part 2/

                  --
                  Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Sunday September 01 2019, @09:00AM (3 children)

                    by Kell (292) on Sunday September 01 2019, @09:00AM (#888424)

                    Part 2: The revenge!
                    How many trans people have you (knowingly) actually met and talked to?

                    As for treating the mind vs treating the body, I can point you to the personal experience of women who have for social and personal reasons tried very, very hard to not be trans. To the point of seeking counselling and an equivalent to conversion therapy. Simpyl put, it didn't work. They were angry and self-destructive (and in one case attempted suicide, unsuccessfully). In contrast, you see these people get on their hormones and their world changes - they become happy for the first time in a long time. Doctors, despite your previous assertion, are not monsters - they want their patients to be happy. They prescribe HRT and surgery because it works. I've seen it with my own eyes. Four years ago a friend of mine who I'd known as a gay man came out to me as trans, and she went from being a sad, very distant person to suddenly being full of life. Until you actually get to know these people in person it's easy to listen to the rhetoric about how trans people are deluded or sick or mutilated by doctors, but it simply isn't true.

                    Of course, my personal experience in this area doesn't transfer to you. You have no reason to believe me (especially since you seem convinced that I belong to some 'side'), but if you at all put value in evidence then I invite you to go out and meet these people yourself and ask them about their lives and what they're going through. You may find it enlightening.

                    But is it better for the people being advocated for? So stop being an activist for a moment and try being the follower of the scientific method you claim in your sig. Which one is more likely to help the patient, the hard path or the impossible one?

                    Yes, for the reasons outlined above. Conversion therapy doesn't work, and has a long, bitter history of damaging people. Transition is most often successful and results in happier people, as the many women (and some dudes) I know personally will attest. Yes, transition is hard - I can only imagine what they go through - but it's not impossible. The irony is, it's the negative reaction of society that creates the majority of stress for transitioning people. If people just didn't give a shit about what those people were doing to their bodies, it would not be as difficult as it is. If governments treated it like any other congenital defect, then they could get treatment and not worry. But people going around saying it's mental illness make that much harder than it has to be. To return us to the original context of this discussion, my philosophical position should be that these people should be treated fairly in society.

                    how much damage are we doing to society in general with this obsession?

                    I think it's good to be obsessed with providing healthcare and better quality of life to people. I don't think it's doing any damage whatsoever: the patients are happier, and a more tolerant society is one more at peace with itself.

                    Yeah, sometimes the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the one.

                    Fortunately, good medical care for transgender people hurts you not one jot. The cost of providing HRT to a trans person pales in comparison with the cost of ongoing psychiatric care and hospitalisation.

                    Reality is. Here in the U.S. we are just starting to let trans into woman's bathrooms and already have several incidents involving children

                    Citation needed. I went looking for examples of this, actually - I wanted to see where the evidence lay. What I found was numerous examples of transwomen being assaulted in bathrooms, a few cases of men entering women's restrooms to assault a woman, and not a single one of a transwomen being a perpertrator. Unless that has magically changed in the last six months, I'm calling it bullshit. Remember - transgender people have been using public bathrooms since there have been public bathrooms and you just didn't know. And, as criminal reports have shown, nothing is stopping men from simply walking on in anyway. Unless you are convinced that transgender people are somehow more prone to criminality (much as what was falsely spread about gay men in the 80-90s) then there is no reason to think that transwomen pose any more risk to girls than men, and much reason to think otherwise. No sacrifices to Molech are needed (but nice biblical reference there, I prefer Baal myself).

                    That really is my bottom line. Yes we should try to integrate as many people as possible into being productive citizens. Yes we should try to avoid putting up unneeded roadblocks to people doing their own thing, living their own life as they feel is best so long as they aren't harming others. But that should not be unlimited, it should not require the many to sacrifice liberty for the often delusional and unfixable grudges and mental aberrations of the few. And sometimes that even means saying the person with the best paper qualifications not only doesn't get the job but must not.

                    So, you're literally saying that we should not put roadblocks in people's way (I agree!), but that the person with the best paper qualifications "not only doesn't get the job but must not" - that's contradictory. If by "delusional and unfixable grudges and mental aberrations" you mean the bluehaired femnazis, then sure, I agree. If you mean gender diverse people and women, then I disagree.

                    Regarding women in combat, I will refer you to my previous statements about how women should be allowed to be truck drivers if they can make the grade. So too should women be allowed to be combat operators if they can make the grade. The grade as is required by them to do their job. I don't at all advocate watering down of standard for different demographics - you can either do the job, or you can't. I think we agree on this. I do disagree about "the disruption" of having women in jobs like firefighters. C'mon, really, "disruption"? Like what, putting a women's bathroom in the bunkhouse? If a firefighting professional cannot deal with having a woman his equal on his crew, then he has no business being in a job that requires high performance under extreme pressure.

                    It would be a better world if people could be more honest about these things, speak openly instead of in code and fear.

                    I thought that was what we're doing? I'm not judging you here, but I will certainly address your argument.

                    Stay tuned for the thrilling finale in part 3!

                    --
                    Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Sunday September 01 2019, @09:02AM

                      by Kell (292) on Sunday September 01 2019, @09:02AM (#888425)

                      Part 3: The Final Battle

                      a smart manager should find a rationale to cull them as early as possible. Not because they are trans[1], but because they should be culling on obvious signs of SJWs and almost all trans would get culled by that criteria.

                      You realise that is textbook prejudice, right? "I think this group of people hold certain views I dislike. This person is from that group, therefore they probably hold these views, therefore I will get rid of them." Even if I agreed that SJWs were bad (some are, it's a spectrum, I guess?), and that transgender people were more likely to be SJWs, then it would still be unethical to fire/not hire them on that basis. You would need to speak to the actual person themself and find out what their own views were, and whether or not they were compatible with your organisation. Personally, I think it's shit to fire people for their social/political views if they are not causing a disruption at work or adversely effecting the company - that goes for all political leanings (yes, even that one).

                      Hiring any SJW is the fastest way to ruin a workplace of any sort, not only will they destroy morale, they instantly attempt to influence hiring policy to pull more of their fellows in.

                      I don't doubt that it happens overseas, but it's not something I've seen here. I'm on both the school hiring committee and on the ally action group at my university; I've been on hiring boards with people who I know have social progressive agendas. As it was, gender was never mentioned, even once. Not once. Nobody brought it up. In the last hiring round, all the candidates we hired were men because the women who applied weren't as qualified. It was that simple "She's not as good as he and the other guy are." "Ok, then so it's down to those two." If it did come up, then I would be very quick to point out that only the candidates performance was acceptable criteria in hiring - but it's not happened anywhere I've ever been involved in a hiring process. Conversely, I have actually removed myself from a job application because I found out that they were specifically only hiring women for an academic post. I told the recruiter "I'm sorry, but I don't want to work somewhere where people will think I was advanced solely because I'm a woman. Please consider me again for the next round open to both men and women".

                      I agree that the bluehaired femnazi types are a huge problem. We don't have much to do with them here, I'm pleased to say. As mentioned at the very top of this conversation thread, I dislike being mistaken for them because it leads people to make assumptions about my philosophical and political positions.

                      Check this advocacy group blowing squid ink trying to rebut

                      You mean where they talk to actual the author of the study and ask her what she thought, and she thought that her work was being misrepresented? Yes - this is very useful, thank you! In the researcher's own words:

                      The aim of trans medical interventions is to bring a trans person’s body more in line with their gender identity, resulting in the measurable diminishment of their gender dysphoria. However trans people as a group also experience significant social oppression in the form of bullying, abuse, rape and hate crimes. Medical transition alone won’t resolve the effects of crushing social oppression: social anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress.

                      What we’ve found is that treatment models which ignore the effect of cultural oppression and outright hate aren’t enough. We need to understand that our treatment models must be responsive to not only gender dysphoria, but the effects of anti-trans hate as well. That’s what improved care means.

                      People who misuse the study always omit the fact that the study clearly states that it is not an evaluation of gender dysphoria treatment. If we look at the literature, we find that several recent studies conclude that WPATH Standards of Care compliant treatment decrease gender dysphoria and improves mental health.

                      I figure nobody knows Cecilia Dhejne's work like Cecilia Dhejne.

                      Thank you for bringing this to my attention - I will certainly follow up with the other sources linked in this article. It's an excellent resource for transgender advocates. If I have a 'team', it's the team of wanting to help people, and I appreciate all the support I can get.

                      --
                      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
                    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday September 01 2019, @05:01PM (1 child)

                      by Pino P (4721) on Sunday September 01 2019, @05:01PM (#888525) Journal

                      If governments treated [gender dysphoria] like any other congenital defect, then they could get treatment and not worry. But people going around saying it's mental illness make that much harder than it has to be.

                      In other words, it's a symptom of a bigger problem. This problem is that governments don't treat autism, chronic mental illness, and other brain conditions that impair function in society as the congenital defects that they are.

                      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Monday September 02 2019, @08:32AM

                        by Kell (292) on Monday September 02 2019, @08:32AM (#888767)

                        Agreed - we're shockingly bad as a society when it comes to dealing with people with mental issues, or heck, even physical problems. Compassion is not economically viable, I guess?

                        --
                        Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
                  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday September 01 2019, @04:45PM (3 children)

                    by Pino P (4721) on Sunday September 01 2019, @04:45PM (#888518) Journal

                    There are, however, things that can be done to reduce the demand for convenience abortion.

                    You mention the welfare state impact of not being able to afford to raise a child. A state could try to solve practical problems in order to make another 8-letter A word (adoption) a more viable replacement for financially motivated abortion. One is abuse of foster children. Another is the cost of obstetrics. One barrier to fixing this is Republicans and other fiscal-social conservatives who want to have their cake and eat it too. They want pro-life policy, but they aren't willing to raise and spend the public money to make it happen. So how could a state go about fixing this without over-taxing its citizens?

                    Until the adoption situation improves, I see making elective abortion available as analogous to the harm reduction argument for needle exchange programs. It's a lesser evil in the short term than a clothes hanger in the back alley, but an evil nonetheless that should be solved in the long term through policies that reduce the demand for abortion.

                    The body autonomy argument could be stronger if combined with the rape argument. Otherwise, with body autonomy alone, if there was no rape, the woman exercised her body autonomy in consenting to sex and its consequences. And with rape alone, how do the circumstances of a child's conception make it acceptable to end the child's life?

                    I fully support access to abortion in those 3 percent of cases that threaten the mother with death or permanent disability. This, as I understand it, is part of the "safe, legal, and rare" plank that the Clintons were espousing in 1996 before their party pushed harder toward wider acceptance of convenience abortion. (Source: "Safe, Legal, and Rare: The Democrats’ Evolving Stance on Abortion" by Lainey Newman [harvardpolitics.com])

                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Monday September 02 2019, @08:29AM (2 children)

                      by Kell (292) on Monday September 02 2019, @08:29AM (#888766)

                      I agree that adoption is preferable; an abortion for economic reasons is the weakest reason, but I include it for completeness. I am friends with two adoptees, and they have mixed stories to tell - one a good experience and the other very very poor. I think society needs to invest in humanitarianism, honestly. We're good at telling people what they can/can't do, but rarely good at financing things that reduce suffering. I honestly don't know the answer to it - but if you want to minimise cost to the government, abortion of early term fetuses is a pretty clear gain.

                      I would argue that in the case of bodily autonomy, if contraception was used and failed, then the pregnancy is accidental and would therefore be grounds for compassionate termination. However, it's impossible to police who had legitimately suffered from technology failure and who had not. So, the principle of autonomy stands on its own. Furthermore, bodily autonomy is an important right to protect for a whole host of other reasons outside of abortion, which makes defending it here also important, lest it catalyse erosion of individual rights of a person to their own physical sovereignty. I'm always surprised at staunch small-government conservatives who think abortion should be banned - I would have thought they'd be very strongly in favour of keeping the government out of personal medical decisions, but what do I know?

                      Thank you for your interesting input!

                      --
                      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
                      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday September 02 2019, @02:49PM (1 child)

                        by Pino P (4721) on Monday September 02 2019, @02:49PM (#888839) Journal

                        I would argue that in the case of bodily autonomy, if contraception was used and failed, then the pregnancy is accidental and would therefore be grounds for compassionate termination. However, it's impossible to police who had legitimately suffered from technology failure and who had not.

                        I guess a request for abortion between the first and second missed periods could be presumed a technology failure, as at seven weeks or so, there isn't much to objectively distinguish the child from a fetiform teratoma other than that half the child's DNA comes from someone else.

                        So here's how I understand it: Pretty much everyone except for some evangelical Christians wants to allow abortion before eight weeks, and pretty much everyone except for proverbial blue-haired feminational socialists wants to ban abortion in favor of emergency caesarean delivery after 25 weeks once the child is presumed viable. At 25 weeks, the brain begins to show organized activity, which is in some ways the opposite of clinical death (cessation of organized brain activity).

                        • (Score: 2) by Kell on Monday September 02 2019, @03:20PM

                          by Kell (292) on Monday September 02 2019, @03:20PM (#888849)

                          Yes. I think that's a pretty sensible middle ground. Unfortunately, public discourse these days seems entirely captured by the extremists on both sides.

                          --
                          Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @10:21AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 02 2019, @10:21AM (#888777)

                  I've read this entire thread, interesting conversation.

                  Two things I feel compelled to respond to.

                  For example women in combat is delusion that can only be maintained in a society that hasn't known war in too long and has forgotten eternal truths of warfare. 99% of women can't physically qualify anyway without rewriting the standards but even that 1% should be refused for the sake of maintaining military readiness.

                  Yes, and this is the crux of my biggest issue with the 'watered down' version of equality touted today.

                  There are simple arguments "Women are equal to men!", and complex arguments "Women deserve equality in law, and to be assessed as an individual woman, not as an average of female behaviours". EG, the simple truth that "men are stronger than women", but I can easily find a woman that is stronger than a man. Or, that "men have better spacial intelligence", but it is not difficult to find a woman, that performs better than a man on a spacial test.

                  Currently, our society has devolved to (naturally) the simplest definition, aided by hollywood and all sorts of magazines and crazy websites. And this has caused many women to literally believe that there is no difference between women and men. I've had conversations with women, who espouse that women are better "at social issues" than men, but then turn around and claim that there is no difference between men and women in any area! Or, that there are biological differences in women and men, that make women literally inferior to men, and men literally inferior to women in many areas .. yet, the thought process is EQUAL = IDENTICAL!!!

                  For example, I've had women tell me that females can gain muscle mass just as easily as men. That women can run just as fast as men. (Again, realise I'm referring to averages not individual woman versus individual man). And so when discussions come up about the military? And when women can't get in?

                  They literally lower the standards, then continue to claim there is no difference! For example, the physical required for a woman to pass a fitness test in the Canadian military, a 20 year old woman, is literally now the same as a 50 year old man. Yeah. How's that for changing standards. And don't get me started on what's going to happen in all sorts of scenarios, where women on the front lines mutiny, refuse to follow orders, and others have to shoot them (along with men not doing the same.. ). I can just imagine the reaction to killing women.

                  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=canadian-forces-physical-fitness-standards/hnps1vfu [forces.gc.ca]

                  Some of the above changes might make sense. But pushups? Situps? Situps? Women are either insanely inferior physically to a man, or the bar is so low because they're just letting any woman in. I mean really, situps?

                  These areas of delusion are, as you suggested, only allowed because we're not in a time of war. But this extends through all areas of our society. When women don't perform as per expected, then "change the test" is the norm now. Even to the bizarre fact of having different tests for men and women, and then claiming that men and women are the same!

                  It's utter madness, and it's dangerous.

                  I've met women that thought they were a physical match to me. I'm 6'3, 300lbs, and mostly muscle. Some of these women are literally 5'4, 140lbs with (for a women) a lot of muscle and definitely very fit. But with such a large difference is size, even many martial arts are literally unable to compensate. I can pick up such an opponent, female OR male, and literally with own arm throw them into a wall 10 feet away. People of that size punching me, sometimes don't even cause a *bruise*. There's no way to cause me to 'flip', because if such a person grabs my arm, and tries to do so, their entire weight is hanging off the ground, and their hips aren't able to push into my hips.. because their hips are closer to my knees!

                  Would a 5'4" man try to assault me? Not without a very, very good cause and reason. Yet women that have gone through these courses, have watched TV with silly fight scenes with women hitting men and knocking them out, do so. And think there's "no difference". My point is, some of these things are DANGEROUS.

                  In other words, I've seen women thinking they are superior to men, in areas where they are most likely inferior to men.. and trying to do things that men would not do!

                  Anyhow, this is a lot of rambling.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 31 2019, @12:58PM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 31 2019, @12:58PM (#888205) Homepage Journal

        Eh, approximate equality's fine, just don't go asking for actual equality because it's opposed by reality in a few areas.

        Diversity can fuck right off as a hiring goal though. Merit is king. Merit gives you a good idea how much use someone is going to be to the company. Forced diversity only makes everyone unhappy. It pisses off the people who didn't get the job, the boss who needs the best work he can get from his people, the people already working there who had to earn it, and it leaves the diversity hire not just suspecting but outright knowing they aren't as valuable.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @11:30PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @11:30PM (#888343)

          It's definitely a poor fix for what it's supposed to solve, and it creates new problems.

          Instead of race-based bar-lowering, they should have concentrated more on boosting education in poor areas. This would have automagically done what affirmative action is supposed to do, and it would have done so in a color-blind way so that people of *all* races living in poor school districts were getting a helping hand. It would be a lot harder for poor Whites to be pissed off when they were getting the same leg-up as Blacks for the same reason. Initially, more Blacks would have gotten aid simply due to more Blacks being poor--it would have done the same thing affirmative action did, without appealing to race.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @04:59PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @04:59PM (#888255)

        Seriously, I'm surprised the more reasonable people in the affected groups don't start yelling "shut the fuck up, we can take care of ourselves". It's not like all, or even most, of people in affected groups are fragile snowflakes.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @09:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @09:28PM (#888317)

          The problem with the last 20 years, is that it's given incredible rise to people earning money, by yelling insane things loudest.

          Yes, this problem existed before .. but, media reach was somewhat limited. You also had to have something people wanted (EG, 40 years ago, Christian TV on Sundays, advertising revenue was obtained.)

          While this is good for breaking through barriers, and social change and all that, it's also good for people taking up the gauntlet for issues they aren't even related to, but now receive attention, some power, and most importantly, money. That's what a lot of this is all about. Don't get me wrong, there is legitimacy to many of these causes, but they are constantly taken over by greed, and lunatics.

          That's why all you hear about, are the fragile snowflakes. They make money for being fragile, and even spread to other mediums, like old media.. for more $$$. For example, ever see someone sitting in a news room, being interviewed? They get cash for that. Quoting articles? Often cash. It all runs on cash.

          So the sensible, who just want to live and work, and are happy? Are drowned out by the mad.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @05:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31 2019, @05:37AM (#888116)

    I love reason and solitude

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by darkfeline on Saturday August 31 2019, @10:00PM

    by darkfeline (1030) on Saturday August 31 2019, @10:00PM (#888323) Homepage

    Most transgender people do not base their whole identity around being transgender and try to shove it down your throat at every moment. These are not trannies, but people who also happen to be transgender.

    The ones whose entire identity revolve around their transgender-ness are trannies first, and possibly people second (?). They also happen to be the most vocal, as their existence depends on announcing their transgender-ness to everyone.

    This also goes for vegetarians, religious folk, homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, etc. If someone talks incessantly about one specific aspect of themselves when you first meet them, you nod politely and exit as fast as possible.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!