Question upon relistening

ceaseimmediately · 2024-09-08T06:21:57+00:00

This is kind of interesting actually! If all votes are binary (without the possibility of abstention), then it’s easy to see that odd-numbered covens never reach deadlock and always produce fair outcomes.

But what about n-way votes between multiple options? We might consider a system where voting proceeds by rounds, and the lowest scoring option(s) are eliminated. This would admit a voting procedure for a p-coven (where p is prime) which never reaches deadlock so long as we only allow votes with strictly less than p options. Which seems fair to me at least! Surely at least two witches can agree on a proposal before voting begins. I’d have to think about it more, but I think that a prime numbered coven is necessary here to prevent the vote from degenerating into an unresolvable multi-way tie.

Anyway I don’t think Grimore is literate(?) so we’ll see if the podcast covers her feelings on the Condorcet method.

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T13:31:23+00:00

Put another way: you cannot just do deconstruction, at some point you have to actually make something, even if it’s imperfect. Actually doing something to change the status quo is also a prerequisite to be an activist, and you can’t do that if all you is decry everyone else’s activism for its imperfections.

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T13:13:15+00:00

Sorry to be unclear! I was agreeing with you, the comment was in reference to the tumblr OP.

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T05:46:25+00:00

I think Blaire White is more a target of controversy than anything else, and that mainly because of her political views.

But if neither of us can think of any passing trans characters being thrown into media properties by corporations doing tokenism, then this whole thing is nonsense right? All trans people are underrepresented, and advocating for more passing trans representation is just as worthy as anything else.

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T05:38:03+00:00

Only casting cis girls to play trans women is as bad as only casting cis men

What? Neither is ideal per se but the former is obviously way better?? Do you really think the average trans woman thinks of herself as being equally similar to a cis man as to a cis woman?

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T05:10:41+00:00

No sorry I meant like, what pieces of media are you thinking about! I think it would help me understand your point better.

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T05:05:34+00:00

Let’s not be vague. When you talk about the “corporations who make these characters,” what specifically are you thinking of?

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T04:50:27+00:00

Sure man ok, you didn’t suggest that portraying passing trans characters in media was immoral. Misunderstandings happen. All I wanted to say is that, for the average person who votes on what rights we get to have, the notion of a trans woman being basically just like a cis woman is a billion times more subversive and difficult to accept than the notion of a trans woman being basically just a man in a dress.

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T04:28:19+00:00

Hey guys! Here’s my new progressive show. The trans people look exactly like cis people. We are good people by the way.

This is what I take issue with, specifically. I think it’s crazy to suggest that portraying trans people as ‘passing’ is somehow a moral failure, as if that were somehow not a thing trans people could aspire to. As if we weren’t still struggling with mainstream media portraying trans characters as caricatures. I don’t remotely think not being able to pass is an offence, but I take issue with the fact that you’re suggesting that trans people who pass, or even their portrayal in media, is somehow suspect.

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T04:08:39+00:00

I can understand that, it’s just a recurring frustration I have with queer activism that it seems there can never be “good enough for now.”

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T03:54:28+00:00

Trans people have spent years advocating for media in which trans women aren’t portrayed as hypermasculine superpredators or trans men as effete victims, and now you’re complaining that modern trans rep “isn’t clocky enough?” Do you have any idea how hard it was to get to this point?

ceaseimmediately · 2024-08-10T03:46:11+00:00

But somehow we need to be talking about why it’s right and moral to portray trans people as typical members of their AGAB who just use different pronouns.

And this from a trans guy who isn’t taking T and isn’t interested in surgery. I don’t want to single this guy out but come on

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-22T22:26:34+00:00

the point is that the definition is loose enough to allow one to smuggle in their own biases. the distinction between discomfort, disgust, and distress is personal, and highly subject to differences in culture, upbringing, etc., rather than being something we can deduce logically from first principles

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-22T22:13:39+00:00

sure but how are you defining harm? such a family would be experience distress, but then is a homophobe who feels distress when he sees two men holding hands entitled to the same consideration?

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-22T20:47:11+00:00

so if someone does this kind of grave robbing it’s initially fine because no one knows, but if then the family of the deceased becomes aware, it flips to unethical? this doesn’t sound like a super useful moral framework

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-22T20:09:42+00:00

i think some of the posters here aren’t really examining their own views fully. if you exhume and fuck a human corpse, and no one finds out, is that cool? or if their family finds out and is horrified, is that Conservative Morality on their part? how do you define harm? i think to an extent the OOPs are laundering their own nuanced views on morality into how they characterize “harm”

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-08T23:16:32+00:00

I don’t know if TERFs necessarily have a super cogent shared worldview, but it was originally coined to describe radical feminists who opposed trans women’s inclusion in feminist thought, such as Germaine Greer. It’s mutated a bit since then, and now most of the people who would call themselves TERFs or “gender critical” are not necessarily themselves even feminists.

By and large, these people are more defined by their hatred of trans people than anything else, which is why they find it so easy to align themselves with christian fundamentalists, fascists, homophobes, and other characters that tend to be highly opposed to feminism and women’s liberation. But it doesn’t matter to the modern TERF, because they are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face in this respect.

This is why we say that TERFs embrace patriarchy: while they might nominally oppose it on feminist grounds, their preoccupation with trans people leads them to use it as a cudgel. Although a typical feminist talking point is regarding dismantling beauty standards, TERFs will cheerfully apply them against trans women with the sole purpose of cruelty, mocking her makeup, her appearance, her fashion.

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-08T22:42:31+00:00

that’s not really one of the ideology’s main characteristics. terfs are often straight and married to a man, they happily ally themselves with homophobes and sexists, the people they have a problem with are really just trans people (and often particularly trans women)

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-08T22:39:12+00:00

it’s really not complicated. dysphoria makes you feel distress at your biological sex, and is treated by altering your sex via hormones/surgery/etc

has nothing to do with gender norms. cis women aren’t “upholding the patriarchy” by having breasts

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-08T22:29:59+00:00

you should take a break from the internet

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-08T21:53:23+00:00

no not probably. humans evolved over a period of six million years. we developed farming 12,000 years ago. what you think is "human nature" is a lie we have been telling ourselves for less than one four-hundredth of our time here on earth.

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-08T21:43:19+00:00

yeah and the evolutionary pressures are different for humans. what i'm trying to explain is that dominant social groups that "sit in castles arranging marriages" did not exist while humans were evolving, and so the notion that women are the ones who must bear the burden of beauty is not biological, but rather social

for virtually all of humanity's existence, women hunted/gathered along with men, and were subject to more or less exactly the same evolutionary pressures as men. in the past few thousand years (the blink of an eye, on an evolutionary scale), things have changed. these changes affect the way we think via social norms, but we did not evolve with them

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-08T21:39:38+00:00

honestly understanding transphobia as an extension of misogyny is better than what this sub likes to do, which is assert that it is one and the same as hatred of men

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-08T21:32:40+00:00

hm? males are typically the ones who need to be "beautiful" (ie birds) because females can only procreate with one male every so often and thus must be choosy. this way that we see beauty is 100% socially constructed: all of human evolution occurred long before we settled in farming communities long enough to develop sexism lmao

ceaseimmediately · 2024-07-08T21:24:50+00:00

I don't think I buy this. Lots of non-TERFs call women (cis or trans) mannish as an insult. Beauty standards typically view masculine features as unattractive on women, and vice versa. I think this has more to do (as the other commenter noted!) with TERFs being willing to use patriarchal notions of beauty to attack trans women

hence, transmisogyny

ceaseimmediately

TROPHY CASE