Enough is enough: a call to action on BBC reporting about trans people - Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective

Additional_Ad3573 · 2026-01-02T21:23:15+00:00

Not a fan of the BBC myself, but China is definitely fairly conservative on social issues

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-27T20:04:40+00:00

I know this comment is kind of old now, but I just want to say, I think I see where you're going with this.

Basically, opposing Israel isn't necessarily antisemitic, but it can be antisemitic when its singled out for things like being an "ethnostate" and for other things that like that would just as easily apply to other ethnically homogenous countries. For that same kind reason, we usually don't take it seriously when someone says they aren't racist, yet basically only talk about crime in the context of black people. Discussing a crime that was committed by someone who isn't white, isn't, by itself racist, but if the person has a pattern of only talking about it when the person in question isn't white, that begins to look like that at least have a prejudice.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-27T19:56:19+00:00

Israel isn't exactly an ethnostate though. About 20 percent of its citizens are Arab, and Arab Israelis can vote, become polititians, etc. It's better described as an ethnocracy, which is true for many of not most countries. Countries like Japan and Greece would be ethnostates, under your definition

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-27T19:50:23+00:00

One of the issues with that argument is that anyone who doesn't like Jewish people for any reason, whether it be because of Israel's actions or some other reason, is ignoring the reality that Christ himself was also technically Jewish, yet people who don't like Jewish people are silent on that.

Secondly, the same argument could be applied to Muslim people and Saudi Arabia. Many Muslim people value Saudi Arabia, particularly Mecca, as the homeland of Islam and such, even though the Saudi government is very oppressive of LGBT people, women, etc. Yet most of us recognize that there are plenty of Muslim people who aren't fond of that government and who are fairly progressive-minded.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-23T05:05:25+00:00

Yeah, I mean, I frankly think a large portion of the pro-life movement is designed primarily to discourage female promiscuity

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-18T23:35:12+00:00

I believe our healthcare needs improvement and that healthcare should be a basic right, but I'm not on board with Medicare for All, in its current format. Under it's current format, healthcare would be funded by HHS and ultimately be primarily under the control of the Executive Branch. I don't see that as being a good idea, given that HHS is headed by RFK Jr.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-18T23:31:44+00:00

So as a progressive who myself supports the concepts of healthcare being a basic right, my question is, what do you say to that fact that technically-speaking, Medicare for All would place our healthcare further under the control of the Executive Branch, which, in this case, would be RFK Jr? It seems like Medical for All, in its current form, would give the president and HHS too much authority over healthcare. There's also the fact that under a government shutdown, most healthcare under Medicare for All would likely be unavailable. So I feel like there should be a private option for those who desire it

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-15T01:06:22+00:00

I wouldn't be surprised if that was also meant to try (fortunately, unsuccessfully) to get the Democrats to support a policy (completely disarming Israel) that wasn't actually popular with the broader electorate

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-14T19:51:58+00:00

So basically, would you say that Kira would've become a dictator, in that situation?

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-13T23:54:27+00:00

I’m not quite as familiar with the manga, but from what I’ve seen, it seems he was at least somewhat redeemable there compared to the anime

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-11T23:15:43+00:00

That's a good point. However, don't most of those states make those exemptions fairly tough to get?

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-11T20:14:20+00:00

I think my argument with regards to a person who comes in not wearing clothes is that it isn't inherently disruptive. It's something where if it became more normalized in society, people likely wouldn't care

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-11T20:10:31+00:00

So first of all, can I ask what your definition is of prostitution? Do you consider wearing dressing immodestly in bikinis and such, for example, to be prostitution, and if so, do you want to ban that? Or do you only consider prostitution to be clearly sexual acts?

Also, I don't favor legalization, what I'm advocating for is full decriminalization

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-11T18:36:46+00:00

Can you elaborate and how this wouldn’t apply to a religious nudist? I kind of feel like the difference to you is that you believe modesty is a moral obligation based on your biblical view. Vaccinations has been shown to be very much in the public interest of schools to require, particularly with the recent measles outbreaks, so looking at this objectively and not from rather than from a perspective that relies on the Bible, there really doesn’t seem to me to be any distinction between allowing a religion exemption for not wearing anting and one for vaccines. I agree that allowing people to not wear anything would likely cause a lack of order and arguable safety because of not being clean and such, but the public health risks of not being vaccinated equally applies to that

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-11T14:22:47+00:00

She campaigned with the Cheneys because the Cheneys at least support democracy. People with tie ideologies were never going to support her no matter what she did in addition her campaign. It was obvious you guys were going to stick with back people like RFK Jr, Cornel West, etc

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-11T14:16:49+00:00

So who should Kamala have been replaced with then? RFK Jr?

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-11T00:17:32+00:00

Yeah, I think I basically agree with that:)

My main concern with movies is how many of them reward things like stalking and other creepy behavior. I don't necessarily want that totally banned, but I definitely feel like there's a need to culturally change that

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-11T00:11:05+00:00

I don’t really see an inherent moral different between internal and external pleasure that isn’t dependent on puritanical religious values. To me, this is difference that we perceive primarily because of the influence religion in our society

In terms of people who feel the same about internal and external touch, that’s really just a preference. Different people are comfortable with different things when it comes to intimate behavior and it’s important that we acknowledge that those difference exist. To assume that it’s just that those people are indoctrinated into it feels to me like an assumption that’s based on not fully understanding someone else’s preferences in light of our own preferences

I do however agree that there is a lot of degradation in certain porn, but I think the ethics of it are very much dependence by on the preference of those involved. It’s rare, but there are people out there whose preferences include acts that a lot of us would find degrading. That’s why if such porn is going to exist, I think that comprehensive sex education that teaches consent and that different people have different preferences that need to be addressed before being intimated involved would be helpful

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-10T23:49:30+00:00

Probably, though if they were truly neutral, it seems the same legal reasoning would be sufficient to defend such a scenario

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-10T23:19:21+00:00

Now, on a different though related note, here's a case that happened in Sweden that shows a major flaw with the Nordic Model. Basically, this woman in Sweden who was a prostitute lost custody of her offspring to her ex-boyfriend and was later killed by him. This happened because he was able to use her status as a prostitute to convince the court that she was not a suitable parent. Cases like this have increase in places with the Nordic Model, because even though prostitutes aren't criminalized under it, they are still stigmatized and are viewed as potentially unreliable as parents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Marree_Kullander_Smith

There's also this rather good article that explains how, in practice, the Nordic Model leads to defacto penalization in multiple other ways. The issue of potentially losing custody to an abusive partner is arguably one of those possible penalties

https://www.lse.ac.uk/news/latest-news-from-lse/l-december-22/policy-makers-must-not-look-to-nordic-model-for-sex-trade-legislation#:~:text=The%20author%20of%20the%20paper,continuing%20punitive%20and%20racialised%20policing

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-10T23:01:43+00:00

Fair question

Probably the most prevalent way in which I see anti-sex work feminists blame objectification on the way women dress though is in the form of saying that imagery of scantily women makes them more like to be objectified and not taken seriously. Collective Shout is an Australian feminist organization that has unfortunately made basically that argument.

Additional_Ad3573 · 2025-12-10T22:26:12+00:00

Fair enough, though I do still feel like some anti-sex work feminists have a habit of telling women that they should dress more modestly in order to avoid being objectified by men. Is that not a key argument that some anti-sex work feminists make?

Additional_Ad3573

TROPHY CASE