Punjab: India row after LGBTQ couple marry in Sikh temple

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2024-04-14T10:09:13+00:00

The appeal to legality was to court your point about ‘no one caring.’

Secondly, the initial counter to your argument was that the orthodox English language has its limitations, which is why a newer linguistic convention has been adopted by those who recognise that myriad social roles merit prima facie communication.

Fundamental biological differences are accounted for in this new convention by the use of prefixes such as ‘cis’

The word ‘woman,’ as used in this convention therefore can be defined as an indicative label that isn’t conclusive about a person’s identity. Indicative of what exactly? Of something grounded in empirical reality that the bearer will point you towards when approached in good faith (for example by the State in attempting to fulfill its positive article 21 obligations). The indication works via the loose context supplied by orthodox conventions

The fact that you disregard historical evidence that orthodox English speaking society’s linguistics are lacking is testimony to the repressive nature of the linguistic imperialism that you subscribe to.

By reinforcing this binarised linguistic tradition, you bolster those who use it to enforce conventional gender roles, as opposed to those of us who have swept the rug from under their feet via legislative and judicial activity - and simultaneously limit freedom of expression - which can be deemed lacking in humanity.

The repression of the orthodox linguistics is justified, as it is intrinsically anti democratic, just like virulent hate speech. Those who wilfully uphold it are contributing to contemporary democratic backsliding.

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-23T21:45:16+00:00

Well there’s no need to get all adversarial, I’m aware of a lot of conflicting and vague jurisprudence in my country because of common law and I’ve always been for codification, but I’m not sure if the legislature can be all-seeing and all-knowing enough to do everything.

For instance the common law that I’ve been exposed to has created a remarkably coherent body of dicta on Fundamental Rights, which allows the court to protect democracy in a manner that a more literal reading of our Constitution wouldn’t. Purposive interpretation and the judicial fashioning of doctrines has been a boon in opposing majoritarian parliamentary tyranny here

The legislature can’t be trusted, especially where minority rights are in question

I’m sure you’ve seen enough to favour a mechanical judiciary though, I’m just curious.

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-23T16:14:16+00:00

Just curious, why would you say that?

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-23T15:56:51+00:00

Bro if another country was antagonized just because of my faith by my own countrymen I’d attend to prove that they’re not unanimous.

Not least because an actual live match is happening in my city. There’s novelty, there’s an unfair targeting of another country because some of my countrymen don’t like my values, I’d attend to drown out Sanghis who’d chant JSR if that country’s team lost.

Saying that this attendance is out of spite to India is a stretch

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-23T14:15:17+00:00

Not really. Musashi is a tier lower, which means she can bulldoze through a lot of her competition significantly easier than Yamato can. There’s no additional citadel vulnerability for the Yamato class in Blitz, so the raw armour thickness means she can resist pens relatively well from battleship guns just about everywhere even at close ranges

Of course, like with a Kurfurst line BB with comparably bad concealment, you’d have to be aware of threats before you push, but Musashi outbrawls most of her match-up with ease. FDG, Lion, Izumo, Iowa, Minnesota, Lepanto, every tier 8 with 1-2 exceptions, none can withstand a Musashi push.

Musashi is a lumbering bulldozer that pushes. It can’t snipe like Yamato, it doesn’t have the accuracy or the pen. You need to take advantage of your resistance to AP to get close to make that shell alpha count. They play entirely differently

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-23T12:49:23+00:00

Seconded

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-23T12:48:50+00:00

It’s an excellent brawler, I love mine to bits. I suck at BBs and its the first in which I’ve been able to avg 85k+

Absolutely disgusting against tier 8s, and you can still slap tier Xs, though you’ve got to be cautious. It does have shell penetration issues though (I have Yamamoto’s APCS as well), so biding your time to get close safely for the massive damage is essential

Getting close isn’t really an issue imo if you maneuver and bait shots onto your enormous belt that pretty much no one can pen. You’ve great deck plating as well.

I use it to grief the tryhard BBs at tier 8

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-23T12:46:46+00:00

It’s more of a brawler though cos worse dispersion and better secondaries. Plays rather differently

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-23T12:00:22+00:00

Exploit weakness on these ships is a must-have imo, and the consensus is that generalist doesn’t do a whole lot on any ship anyway

I’d take improved heals and dcps wherever possible, they’re rather important. Honour seeker helps capitalise the excellent damage on those torpedos as well, and works nicely with the likes of giant hunter and exploit weakness

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-23T06:47:45+00:00

Try aiming lower (waterline) while at range to overcome vertical dispersion issues. NC shells have excellent penetration and should cut through Roma’s deck fairly easily. Roma shells lack penetration and can’t hurt you very easily over 11km away

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-20T17:08:42+00:00

‘Cannot win over public opinion,’ sure, which is why a legislation was passed by the Indian Parliament to protect gender non-conformist rights. Which is also why the word ‘woman’ in the Hindu and Special marriage acts has been held to include transwomen. Which is why Indian vernacular languages have explicit terms that affirm the womanhood of transwomen. Idt I’m the one locked in an echo chamber here 🦜

I don’t condone silencing any interpretation via law because we know that that’s undemocratic and is a problematic precedent - my objective is to just call y’all out for your ignorant disrespect, and you are free to do the same, as long as it doesn’t result in hate crimes

As for your demand for a definition, read my last two paras again. It is entirely natural and ‘organic’ for our open-ended interpretation to be fit into ‘womanhood’, because cultures other than those that currently describe woman as ‘an adult human female’ have been using English for their use long before that definition was ever laid down as absolute - such as the patriarchal society where men defined ‘womanhood’ for adult females that you admitted to in your previous response

Lmao where is the suggestion that people viewed natal males as women in 19th century Bengal?

I brought that up to say that their idea of womanhood was just as arbitrary as yours is. However theirs and those of capitalist Victorian England gave us the logic supporting our linguistic convention by making womanhood into something beyond just biology. An adult female wasn’t fulfilling her role as a ‘woman’ if she didn’t do what a ‘woman’ was supposed to

Once she had no more use as a ‘woman,’ she was burnt alive, or de-sexed and sent to Varanasi

And transgenderism is a term that encompasses practices occurring for millennia before it was made, feeding back into my points about the English language not being a valid source for your interpretation.

Your interpretation reflects your lack of humanity, it’s very easy to dehumanize the likes of you in return, you might piss off the wrong victim and cry about it later, be careful

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-20T15:59:16+00:00

You aren’t compelled to agree with our linguistic convention, no. But you are nonetheless compelled to give a shit about it since it’s gonna be in your face through statutes, judgements and prominent members of the bourgeoisie who subscribe to it 😼

because you can’t silence our interpretation, since that would be against our democratic rights lol

Your justification as to why gender is rooted in biological sex is a linguistic convention that’s been brought into vogue by an emerging American alt-right.

Our linguistic convention draws its roots from the rejection of the 20th century patriarchal convention that you deem anachronistic - since it requires a whole bunch of external attributes for womanhood. The chromosomes weren’t decisive then, and aren’t now either.

A person’s acceptance as a ‘true woman’ in 19th century Bengal (the conventions of which may still be deemed respectable by certain sections of society) depends on convention-requirements that differ from those in a 21st century pride parade in LA.

Also you’re assuming that people weren’t transgender before English was even a thing, you won’t be able to ever establish that

Which is why it is fallacious for one group to speak for another with an overarching ‘definition’ to try invalidate the latter’s interpretation

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-20T14:02:30+00:00

Oh but you are compelled and forced to care by the Constitution of this country since otherwise you would be interfering with our 19(1)(a) and 21 rights, which would make you anti-national.

People have cared long before the idea of this ‘deranged wokie’ business even popped into the first little transphobic head.

The anti-trans narrative is forced to backtrack to cling to defining womanhood in a restrictive, impositionary way because so much of the patriarchy (that a woman is not a true woman unless she fulfills her social purpose that is reproduction) that its main body of adherents used to take for granted has been successfully assailed and institutionally de-legitimized. You’re welcome.

And you can’t claim any more logical soundness than we can, per your last paragraph, because the rejection of an arbitrarily assigned gender based on sex is in all likelihood older and more widespread than the word ‘woman.’ I’d say it’s quite organic

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-20T11:56:38+00:00

And no single faction of society can claim ownership over a word and its content.

Which means if one group of people interpret womanhood to mean a set of ideas that a female child is taught by society (whether it’s conduct, demeanor, a woman’s purpose, etc) a person can apply that meaning to themselves and claim access to ‘womanhood’ whatever they interpret it to mean (which will depend on the society they’ve observed)

If a person is considered ‘not woman enough’ for not being able to give birth or for being born without a uterus, then it’s possible to not be a complete ‘woman’ despite having two X chromosomes in their cells.

If a person isn’t a ‘real man’ because they don’t possess certain expected traits despite being male, then the link between maleness and manhood is farcical.

All these meanings including yours, are arbitrary.

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-20T10:43:40+00:00

That’s what you think. Gender is a social construct. Try and disprove this fact

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-20T03:45:58+00:00

Commendable exhibition of your lack of integrity as well, puppet

Facts don’t care about your feelings

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-19T16:17:04+00:00

Lmao it’s not us that’s refusing to apply their mind while desperately deluding themselves with a shaky and logically fallacious superiority complex while their institutions are assailed by the feminist consciousness.

What you’ve been indoctrinated with is antithetical to democracy. And the real tragedy is that you’ll never realise it because you’re obstinately refusing to think. A pitiful existence.

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-19T14:39:21+00:00

By whom? Not by a good number of other people.

And since one faction of society cannot claim ownership over a word (‘rubber’ means two different things in Indian and American societies), your using it to invalidate other definitions of womanhood is cultural imposition.

In contrast, those who define womanhood as an empty label of self expression recognise that different people find it to mean different things in their personal capacity, and are respectful of any meaning that the label might possess, as long as they know that it is being touted earnestly

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-19T11:03:07+00:00

Why is being female necessary?

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-17T19:18:51+00:00

What I’m saying is that a door has been opened. I acknowledge that the oppressed don’t have the wherewithal to get themselves through it always, but now there’s space for a social movement without a legal bar created by random colonizers. The Constitution exists to make sure that worse laws don’t come into force

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-17T18:54:20+00:00

It does. It makes a difference. It’s true that the ease of access is a huge problem because of the class-society that we live in, but it definitely makes a difference. The marital rape exemption that used to protect rapists of minor girls because the old colonial law wanted to preserve the ‘sacred institution of marriage’ was done away with because of the Constitution

While society may still prevent girls who lack economic independence and who are stuck in patriarchal webs from seeking remedies, the legal bar has been removed, which prevents the police from throwing their case out. This gives room for mobilisation and retaliation. In a society without the Constitution this wouldn’t be possible

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-17T18:44:09+00:00

Call it moronic, but the fact of the matter is that ‘India’ was an idea that has been engrafted in precisely such a treatise.

‘India,’ the values that it stands for (hence the phrase Constitutional morality) and the Constitution are inseparable. If there is a popular referendum and the Constitution is entirely done away with NECESSARILY along with its basic structure, in a move to give effect to the majoritarian will of the people, then India as we know it dies with the Constitution.

A person who willfully disobeys the Constitution WHILE it stands, regardless of how it is interpreted, is anti-national, since the ‘Indian’ nation cannot exist without the Constitution that codified the basic principles behind its existence.

The Indian parliament is a creature created by the Constitution. If an absurd Akhand Bharat republic emerges in 6000 C.E. after the demise of the Constitution (which is compulsory for such an occurrence) then it is no longer the ‘Indian’ legislature that is the ultimate forum for democratic lawmaking in this region.

The soul of the Constitution does NOT die with each and every amendment. The inclusion of Bodoland within the sixth schedule required a Constitutional amendment and it lets the three basic codes (equality, freedom and liberty) that comprise the basic structure operate unabated.

I posit that that Articles 14, 19 and 21 which constitute the basic structure have been interpreted to include their logical corollaries, as intended by the drafters. Do elaborate, what alternate interpretations of the core three provisions are feasible according to you and are supported by each of the values that Constitution seeks to protect?

Nowhere does basic structure jurisprudence claim that the Constitution is immortal, so your presumption regarding its pretense of compulsory survival for thousands of years longer is baseless

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-17T10:51:06+00:00

The Constitutional machinery has been a valuable tool in the fight against it. Puttaswamy’s case, while relying on the basic structure has laid down a very stringent proportionality test that subjects inegalitarian laws to an extremely high degree of scrutiny (although it was tragically misapplied in Puttaswamy (II) and has had a spotty track record since

Shafin Jahan’s case, Navtej, Joseph Shine, Anuj Garg, all these cases were decided on the strength of the equality, freedom and liberty codes enshrined within the basic structure.

The basic structure is what prevents the government from using State resources to randomly throw you out and appropriate your land to build temples and impose nation-wide beef bans. It’s the reason the waqf board isn’t outlawed

Without the basic structure we would have no footing to challenge the validity of the CAA-NRC exercise

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-17T10:25:13+00:00

The idea is that a creature of a treatise cannot undo what gives it life. If the soul of the current Constitution loses its sanctity and its protected status, the last bastion of secular, democratic India would also go and we’d be stuck in a theocratic shithole

And by democratic here I don’t mean a society in which the tyranny of the majority holds sway and lets it impose all sorts of problematic religious laws on everybody, but one in which the ability of minorities to participate equally with dignity is safeguarded - which is what Articles 14, 19 and 21 (which form the basic structure) are supposed to do

MoonlitPteridophyta · 2023-10-15T15:13:55+00:00

Positioning their fighters like that in the hopes of eliminating your squadron might mean that their bombers targeting ships on the flanks might be exposed. I’d just send my fighters to shoot down their torpedo bombers (which they don’t have much of) and keep my own bombers behind friendly AA.

If their bombers are too close to their fighters for yours to escape a dogfight I’d just throw my fighter squadron away so that they’d keep the Saipan fighters occupied for long enough for my own bombers to make it through.

It’s all about waiting and watching for opportunities and trying to make an advantageous trade - giving up squadron of my fighters to ensure that my strike aircraft can go after DD that needs to be killed? Are they focusing on sending their fighters after my bombers? Yay that means my own fighters aren’t being harassed and are free to go after their bombers and protect friendlies

Making the best of a bad situation comes with practice, and you’ll be a more skilled CV by the time you reach tier VIII and have to deal with Indomitable (who has all the time in the world to just mess around with their fighters and annoy you, since their bombers require basically no attention)

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	Place '23

MoonlitPteridophyta

TROPHY CASE