My Grandmother always called this sort of thing being a “red letter Christian”. Basically like you take a highlighter to everything Jesus specifically did or said and discard the rest.

My Mom’s family all followed this principle since like the 70’s thus saving my trans ass from any hint of intergenerationally inflicted religious trauma so I am a fan. My 92 year old great uncle went to bat to fight for non-binary gender accommodations in his seniors home because one of his nurses is an enby who was getting a raw deal from a number of their paitents. Honestly, though I don’t think the Christian God is what he says he is, his kid seems weird but as a rules for life kinda thing the results seem good. .

I would say less than on reddit but still a thing. Being cisgender still is treated as a norm and the sort of folks who openly display misogynistic tendencies are fewer and farther between… But any innocuous mention to being trans will very get you a couple of dedicated downvoters or people who use gender essentialist arguements, silencing tactics (oh you’re just being decisive) or transphobic rhetoric.

Not to say that it is bad comparatively. This is one of the most trans neutral places on the internet. It’s not “trans friendly” mind you, I would categorize that as places where concensus about trans people being a normal thing to be has been reached and attention has shifted away from our basic rights as being up for debate… But trans neutral spaces are important too. We need holding spaces away from places where trans people talk openly where people can get to know us where the majority of support shuts down open hostility towards us prompting more nuanced interaction.

A lot of trans hostile spaces exist out there where being openly trans or advocacy for our needs invites a lot of death threats, calls for suicide, doxxing attacks and so on. If you see a comment section on youtube on a queer creator for instance that’s overwhelmingly trans positive that generally means there’s heavy moderation at play because they are trying to create spaces safe for their queer audience to interact with each other. What you as a casual visitor generally don’t see is the mental cost being taken on by that moderation team to artificially create the illusion of that positive space. Here on this instance that level of moderation is unnecessary because generally speaking the volume is manageable.

Conspiracies that require absolute lock tight secrecy to function at a basic level aren’t generally tenable to be sustained for longer than a handful of years at a time at most. Somebody always fucks up or basically was just lucky nobody checked for awhile. The nessesity of any large scale collaboration creates inefficiencies and potential error points in the system. Even the best of the best spy agencies fuck up and get caught rather routinely, particularly when operating on their home soil. A lot of investigative journalists accidentally trip over stuff all the time but have good faith arrangements (or in some places laws) to not disclose the active manoeuvres of the state to the public.

It’s just really hard for humans in general to accept that events that effected them or things they care about very deeply personally weren’t somehow also grand in design. Grocking sometimes it really is just random chance or stupid mishandling is not something we’re well wired to handle. Stories of all powerful conspiracies masterminding the world scratch that itch… But logistically speaking the conspiracy aspect is completely unnecessary. If someone is trying to blame a nebulous bogeymen who exists as nameless, numberless ultimately wealthy but also totally off the books super spies… chances are they are just trying to capitalize on making you feel flattered, smart and empowered by something “only you are smart enough to believe” - while feeding you bullshit they can personally profit from in some way with you none the wiser.

Then, provided this is not simply a theoretical, I wish you whatever outcome is the best for everyone in the situation you are in. May you and your partner find the most happiness whatever that outcome looks like.

And that’s fine. I do what I do because I have a mentality of non-fungibility. There aren’t simply more fish in the sea, this is my person. There’s not another one out there for me.

There isn’t anything ethically wrong with someone with a more flexible approach to romance or someone who has a hard boundry. Not everyone is down for a sacrifice at that level for another person - and that is okay, not everyone is deserving of being the recipient of that kind of sacrifice just as everyone isn’t nessisarily capable of making that kind of sacrifice. If you are only kind of happy with your relationship then that’s not enough it has to be deep. It isn’t nessisarily easy, it doesn’t get easier and it might require daily conviction. It is a vulnerable space too. If you don’t have absolute trust it’s not going to work and absolute trust comes with intense emotional risk.

But on the other hand of things if your partner is dead set on doing this, you love them in a holistic way, you’re in a stable environment and you are at any level unsure of your ability to be attracted to them… you could probably afford to try. You might actually surprise yourself with be how you are okay then you thought you would be - and you can set the expectation at the beginning of the process that you are unsure of yourself and don’t know if it’s something you can do so they know and weigh the risks as part of their transition. Not all transitions are 100%. Trans people are often very calculated about what they choose to pursue based on what they personally value out of life in a more general sense. Not everyone goes for every option and the reasons behind them are intensely personal value judgements that involve way more than just the dysphoria/euphoria hits. I think way too many people peace out of things in general before they try or fully understand something and miss out because they built molehills into mountains. The process of transition isn’t lightning fast. You have time to think, to adjust, to compromise and if it really isn’t working for you then you will be absolutely sure that it’s not for you.

It all depends on your personal estimation of the value of the relationship you have going and how open you are to the process of self exploration to test your hypothesis about yourself against an actual real life situation. Because none of us know ourselves half so well as we think we do.

As a trans masculine non-binary person it’s more of personal conversation. My partner isn’t into masculine body types so my transition ended up being purely social because my partner does more on a daily basis to contribute to my happiness then the comfort of being in a body that doesn’t make me feel like shit daily. It’s a bit like having a pet allergy but deciding that you can live with feeling like someone poured sand into your sinuses every day rather than giving up your furry best friend. For all purposes though our relationship is coded and treated as though I am my specified gender. We are effectively culturally a same sex couple. Neither of us use female terms for my junk and he doesn’t claim to be straight. We do joke he is “queer by association” however.

But what I am doing counts as a full transition.

In regards to the what you give up situation it’s all rather dependant on how adverse you are and whether someone in your relationship is able to give a little and how much you value and ultimately how non-fungible the relationship is to you… Because - just putting it out there - strap-ons do exist.

As a Socialist that subscribes more to the historical strain of Saint Simone and Robert Owen that broke out and away early from Marxism to become the Chartist movement and the history of American non-Marxist socialism … I am often tired of how one note Tankies are. They seem obsessed with a sort of internal purity which denies a rich history of socialism other than Marx and Engles. Once one of them goes off about Stalinism or Maoism I basically just disengage because at that point they are basically so enamored with the aesthetics of communism that they aren’t going to be listening to anything. They want to be devout to the ideology while whitewashing the bloodstains of past failures. I understand a collectivist mindset is more or less what Marx aims to cultivate in his work but it seems often at the cost of tolerance of any level of apostasy.

The flattening of a mass of political thought into cardboard cuttouts to snipe at and sneering at the range of Socialism hybrids with No True Scotsman flavour condescension as political ideologies simply not complete worldviews in their own right has got me rather depressed in dealing with the average Communist on here. People in general often just seem to want to find something simple and easy to hate.

Irrelevant.

Do you think that necklace makes you look sexy? Does it give you confidence to wear it out? Great! Confidence is sexy. Having something you do for yourself is sexy. Anyone who falls for you is gunna probably think that necklace is cool either because they are gunna associate it with you and it is gunna make them smile because you obviously like wearing it. Think of the accessory worn by your favorite character - that could be how someone who really likes you reacts to your accessory in the future.

If someone thinks it’s not their style or thinks it looks dumb if it’s a deal breaker they kinda shallow and you’re better off without… and if they value your feelings they are gunna think your attachment to the thing is cute.

Embrace the pendant. Life is too short to deny yourself the things you like.

There are other models of sexuallity. Things like lesbian/gay/straight/bi etc. or hetero/homosexuality is one based on the relative attraction between sexes or genders… But one could also use the model that simply refers to the subject of an individual’s attraction. Gynosexual , Androsexual, Skoliosexual or Pansexual. It’s arguably a more neutral way to classify because it draws no particular difference between same-sex or opposite sex attraction. It also tends to work better when dealing with non-binary people because self classification gets weird when you need to use a binary classification system for a non-binary experience.

Have you tried acting trans simply for popularity sake? I am genuinely curious if it’s something you would be willing to try and ultimately what your take aways on the experience would be.

She’s definitely not in a good place. The people she preaches to are primed to think she’s at best a pitiable freak and mentally ill for being what she is but she’s addicted to being their pet trans woman because she’s so keen to feel more somehow respectable than other trans people.

It doesn’t seem like at all a healthy place to be.

I mean I go pretty effortlessly closeted at work as a non-binary trans person even though my hair is a neon rainbow and people clock me as both male or female on occasion. Coming out of the closet to some select folk tends to elicit way more blindsided surprise then seems reasonable given I don’t think I could look more stereotypical enby if I tried. My conclusion is cis people in general are pretty trans blind outside of the binary. Infra and Ultra gender sounds about right.

Not a particularly good point. Just because gender and race are both social constructs doesn’t mean that both run on the same ruleset. Women and men exist as social categories in all cultures and trans people are seen across cultures existing even when the idea of trans people is buried and obfuscated. In reality there is no %100 male or female body. Our bodies are all mutable holding different measures of the same horomones, the organs are basically just inversions of each other and male and female are just sliding scales of intersexual potentialities. Trans people in many instances aren’t just looking for just a skin deep social category change. If it were a possibility a lot of trans people want to be able to have the full biological function of the category including the ability to birth children. While gender is performative transness is not strictly all about affect. Gender performativity as described by a few genderpunk philosophers does not well explain the full phenomenon of transness.

“Cross racial transness” if it exists in good faith at all, is pretty bloody rare. The likes of Oli London have found their way into the feeds of the anti-trans pipeline where they have used their experience to try and make gender performativity and trans people look like made up bullshit. As a community this has been used as a cudgel against both trans people and POC. Catch all rules for every instance of social construct does not exist - each one is unique and the negotiations are complex.

Now that is a complicated question. There is a “one drop” narrative that extreme supremacists have… but someone who doesn’t look black claiming blackness would definitely get a side eye from a chunk of the black community where even lighter skinned black folks are made aware of the privileges of shade and tone…

So probably both yes and no or the principle of Mu depending on circumstance?

Gunna take this as Liberal/Conservative as party brand names rather than strict social ideology and you’re talking about “the left” more generally.

I think the short answer is empathy. When you dig down to the bottom a lot of the discussion on the left talks about different forms of human needs. A need to feel accepted and loved, desires to exist publicly without fear… It is a radical form of empathy that asks you to put yourself in multiple pairs of shoes and see the world through perspectives you aren’t naturally born into. The ultimate aim is to achieve a picture of humanity which is inclusive of the widest possible range of understanding.

In that way “Conservatives” are also people. It is not impossible to empathize with their issues. It takes a lot cognitively to internalize this new data and a lot of the rejection from the right comes not from outright cruelty but a desire for things to be and remain simple and easy. They don’t want to stretch themselves and are scared of a world where that is something they are forced to do. The issue is a lot of the people selling the pitchforks on that side are doing it because it benefits them. That desire to understand encompasses the motives of individual Conservatives and splits them apart. A lot of the issues Conservatives have is that the left is “preachy” that we act like we’re better than them and that does come from somewhere. Some leftists do just want to be the smartest most correct person in the room but others are just waiting for the Conservatives they know to be more understanding of other people who they learned about so they stop being mean. The person who pitties the school bully is often their target because that empathy seems to the bully like condescension.

Uh… Was this in response to the right post? I am not vegan nor do I wish to be and I never mentioned anything about rice and beans…

Half my social circle has gone vegan at this point and I think a lot of the anti-vegan sentiments is people don’t like modifying their behaviour to give up their own comfort even when they know something is distressing to someone else. Since a lot of vegans see a very real cruelty that they are generally powerless to stop and other people do not understand their reactions to seeing other people participate in cruelty is often to feel very sad. Since so much of human culture surrounds shared meals having a vegan takes a lot of options off the table entirely and alters other people’s options even when they don’t intend to.

Like it’s not a matter of “well we’ll go to your vegetarian restaurant this time and next time we go to a place I’m excited to go” for those of us who care about our friends being upset we basically rarely pick our first choices and more often sacrifice things we are excited for in the name of someone else’s comfort. It can be a love language to find restaurants and eat the things on the menu that don’t exactly thrill you but other times you just want to have that selfish Birthday dinner where you don’t feel compelled to pick a restaurant for someone else.

I think a lot of people reject veganism more forcefully because they don’t want to have to participate in that sort of friction. All it takes is one ethical vegan to completly change a friend groups food culture. Even when they bring their own food and try not to make a big deal and mask it not bothering them when they see meat being consumed people are generally compelled to care for people they know and ignoring someone’s distress isn’t showing care. When people ratchet up the social cost of veganism they are more often than not trying to engineer a social sphere where they do not feel callous, don’t have to give up what they like and don’t have to do any additional research work or social calculations .

Basically alcohol and the tiniest smidgen of weed. I am allergic to hops and pot as it turns out so wheezing like I am dying or throwing up doesn’t seem worth the plusses. Still figure I got off lightly though, got a buddy who can’t go into cities or near concerts because one whiff will send her into anaphylaxis.

As for everything else I just am leery. Too many elementary school buddies dead from Fentanyl and I saw a lot of really fucked up shit from my friend’s addict parents when I was a kid.

Good on him!

I am always struck in the reading by how Jesus basically just sounds like every other two-bit cult leader. Everything is put in very grand terms as though he were greatly respected and doing everything for a captivated public but these could actually be just have been very commonplace interactions.

Like just look at how the Mormons mythologized Joseph Smith. He was literally just a “rock in a hat” grifter and dowser of the type was reasonably common who when his life is placed in appropriate historical context was not really super notable. He just got popular. There are a metric fuckton of cults at any given point who just never make superstar notoriety and die out largely uncommented on even in our news and propriety obsessed modernity. Their internal writings however are always self centered and bombastic. Cults elevate the mundane into hyperbole when you are inside them but from the outside they retain their mundanity. There’s a lot of people who just slip through historical cracks the further back you go because their contemporaries didn’t record things they didn’t think was notable or was just the water they swum in. Hard records generally tend to be beaurcratic and stories evolve dramatically to gain staying power.

We don’t treat “Christ” as the job title it is. It isn’t applied to other people but it could be. We say “Christ-like figure” but they could just be Christs. There are plenty of failed Christs out there. You generally dunno which ones have staying power until past the general limits of a human lifetime.