It’s been several years, but I’ve received something similar from UHC, maybe only a few sentences shorter. This reads to me like the same bs put through an LLM.
I did get them to cover their denied service, btw, after faxing over the world’s thinnest-disguised pissy letter of contest to their decision. I’m not an easy person to anger but let me tell you, I saw red when I got that denial.
Are you sure they are intending it in a diminutive sense and not a familiar or affectionate sense? Buddy is pretty common to call people you are being friendly with in American English at least. If you don’t like a nickname or term of endearment, you can tell your friends not to use it, but fair warning, friends of your age might just tease you about it instead of respecting your wishes.
All you’re doing is telling other trans people that their gender recognition is conditionally valid only on their good behavior, and that it can be revoked if they piss you off. Maybe consider why this would make trans people feel unsafe with you, even if they are on your side politically.
Well for the snow, I’d imagine the cleared circle is from the heat from the fire. I’d say it’s more suspicious that the chopping block has unmelted snow on it so close to the fire, but it’s also possible someone moved it into frame for the picture, which also could be why it’s more crooked. And do you never put Christmas lights outside where you are? It could very well be just a regular tree with outdoor rated lights on it.
Not saying that it’s 100% not AI or anything, the vibe is definitely AI, just that I don’t see anything completely unreasonable in this image that gives it away.
Edit to add: it’s a photo from 4 years ago, categorically not AI.
I think I agree, I don’t think it’s AI generated (reflections all seem to line up, none of the details are really weird that I can see) but I suspect it may be a manipulated image, either via AI or manually. The focus seems off to me, especially in the foreground.
Is there a reason you have characterized this incident as a gender issue?
Was the poor work the work of the nurse who heard you and chewed you out? Do you often criticize the work of your coworkers in a nonproductive manner, expletives or no?
Did you say anything else before saying “fuck” to your coworker, or before she chewed you out? Do you think you were on good terms with her before this incident?
Are you listening to the specifics of your coworkers’ complaints? What are they asking you to do differently?
Have you ever met a tenured college prof before? Lol
My guess is that Judy Blume writes about girls going through puberty and getting periods as a normal, frank discussion of what that’s like. And any talk about the bodies of women and girls is indecent to conservatives.
They’ve actually slightly improved this lately, they ask about what they determine are risky sexual behaviors (ie hookups) with no gender attached now. The one thing is that you can’t be actively taking PrEP and donate because it would obscure the HIV testing results (that they ought to be doing every time, multiple times!).
Source: https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/eligibility-requirements/lgbtq-donors.html
I think you have identified some small truth, but have made an error in narrowing the scope of where the deficiency actually lies to the individual/group. Exceptions can imply deficiency (among other things) but I would argue that said deficiencies often are in how these groups are treated by society and not inherent to the groups or individuals themselves.
I’m going to use calculus as an example, since there are plenty of reasons you’d expect someone to not be able to do calculus. If you’re sufficiently young, maybe you don’t have the complex reasoning skills to understand calculus (deficiency, but not permanent). If you’re an adult without a math education, would your inability to do calculus be considered a deficiency, or just a lack of opportunity which can be fixed through assistance? If you have been told your kind of person would suck at doing calculus but you really want to learn, and are performing worse than your peers who are told they are good at this naturally, is that a deficiency in the individual or the system they live in? If you have to work more than one job to keep your family housed and don’t have time for calculus, if you are targeted for police violence, if you’re discriminated against by even the most well-meaning people with authority over you, you could be the most brilliant mathematician and it wouldn’t matter- society at large is failing you.
When you’re talking about “exception” here, I think what is really happening is people taking measures to level the playing field for people who have experienced discrimination. In a perfect world with no individual or systemic discrimination, current or historical, these sorts of “exceptions” wouldn’t be necessary! But that’s not the world we live in. The first step to making a more equitable society is recognizing where people got shafted historically and what affect that still has on society today. Getting the short end of the historical stick does not imply immutable qualities about a group of people today.
So, no, I don’t think that giving exceptions to people who need them most inherently implies that they are individually or categorically deficit.
I didn’t get a chance to watch Jon Oliver’s but I would assume so! I wouldn’t be afraid to watch this one at least, nothing really surprising in it.
I’d say it’s perfectly watchable and low in the bad takes department, at the result of kind of just stating the obvious (ceasefire now). A couple of things my leftist heart disagreed with, but generally in the “which solution is actually the most viable” sense and not the “we disagree about if 30,000+ people deserve to live” sense.
Hey OP, can you elaborate on the context for which you are looking to talk about the queer community? I think that matters a bit. There are more formal and more casual descriptions that I do think are important to discuss the differences of use.
For instance, Gender and Sexual Minorities or GSM is probably the most formal you can go with. This might be appropriate for corporate DEI, but you will get absolutely roasted on social media if you refer to gay people that way. (It’s very clinical, not really something the community uses, but it’s a wide umbrella)
LGBT(QIA+) is a little old school nowadays, a mouthful, and always feels a bit like you’re always going to be missing some letters. If a cishet ally used any variety this, I’m not going to be offended and I’d appreciate that they’re trying- it’s clear that the intention is there and it’s better to signal support imperfectly that be silent imo. This one usually comes up most frequently around Pride Month as there’s a lot more visibility on our community from those who are not in it.
The queer community is probably your best all-purpose use but may not work 100% in formal situations as “queer” has historically been a pejorative. Boomers tend to look at you funny when you use it, and some younger folks who don’t think that slurs can ever be reclaimed can sometimes be put off as well. That said, it’s probably what the majority of the community uses as an umbrella term. This is the one I’d use when chatting with friends. “Gay” can also be used as a substitute for “queer” in this context as many folks will also use that as an umbrella term, but this can be confused with discussing just gay men, so you may have to know your audience.
I had a presumed cishet friend in high school who just used “homosexual”. I wouldn’t recommend. All of the formality of GSM, none of the inclusion.
Other things I would not recommend: alphabet mafia (unless you’re on tiktok), anything that is still generally considered a slur (some folks are reclaiming the f-slur, t-slur and d-slur but I would consider that a deeply personal choice of self expression and not something for cishet folks to use at this time, unless personally invited to use to describe only that person), and lastly, using any of these broad identifiers to refer to specific people who have shared their specific label with you (ie don’t call someone a queer woman when they have told you they identify as bisexual, or a queer man if they said they are a trans man, etc. Some people do identify as queer though, so if they have said as much you can use that specifically then).
That’s a lot of minutia but I think the important thing is, the community generally knows when you are trying your best. Even if you accidentally offend someone, just asking what they would like to be referred to in the future is probably all you need to worry about.
I think there are ways OP can use queer respectfully, and there are ways they may accidentally slip into something that can sound homophobic, so, tread with caution. “The queer community” is fine, that reads to me with the same respect as “queer theory” in an academic setting. “The queers” =homophobic (unless you are part of that community and are being ironic), “are you queer?” =also bad, “my queer colleague” =not good unless that is the specific label they identify with, etc.
Alphabet mafia is best left to the Gen Z kids on TikTok, even as one of them queers myself I’d never use that in a serious setting.
that it has nothing to do with people that think they are something they are not
Thanks for the explicit transphobia, I’m not interested in continuing this conversation either. Trans people are a normal part of life and until you come to terms with that, you should keep their names out of your mouth.
I’m afraid that’s a pretty poor argument. It’s not inherently more mature to subject yourself things that harm you because there exist things that can harm you out in the world.
Please try listening to trans people about their experiences. Deadnaming isn’t just using a old name. For a lot of people, it’s kind of like being called the worst nickname your high school bully had for you, except that everyone in your life, your parents, your friends, everyone, has only called you that for years and years. Some people have a better or at least neutral relationship to their deadname, but it’s still considered incredibly impolite to reference generally speaking.
In regards to this rule, I don’t see a legitimate argument for excluding name changes from marriage and not similarly applying this exception for name changes for trans people (ie associated with a gender marker change, if we want similar criteria to differentiate from other name changes). Both are life events that should be considered normal and regular and not associated with potential fraud. Either this rule applies equally to everyone, or it shouldn’t be applied at all (like it hasn’t been applied in decades to the extent that it isn’t even on the official form).
I was being rhetorical- I know that they aren’t applying it to married people. But why? Wouldn’t the same reasoning hold, that you could use it to defraud? If not, why wouldn’t changing your name to transition not be in the same category of life event as marriage?
“Recent” being within 5 years seems understandable in a general political context, however is a little cruel to trans people who usually don’t want their deadnames out in the public. Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
I like that they went with the simplified “K” shape for Minnesota (the reverse triangle is really clever visually) but I did also like the more colorful version better. Just a little too plain now for me.
Specifically on women’s mental health deteriorating in this situation, often this can occur when she’s still expected to pick up the majority (or all) of domestic labor in addition to her well-paying job. Women are still largely expected to “do it all” by not only their partners but by society. If you’re not a perfect businesswoman, mother, and domestic servant all in one all the time, well you’re failing your spouse, your children, your boss, your identity as a woman, etc. Women don’t just need their male partners to step up for them in labor alone, but also to reevaluate their social role that they are propagating through their (in)actions. What are you teaching your kid if mom is the only one who cooks dinner? Or cleans regularly without reminders? Or keeps track of doctor’s visits, field trips, etc?