@feminism Female stereotypes: - Weak - Not independent - Seductive - Focused on fashion and presentation - More concerned with form and appearance - More concerned about how they are viewed by others - More concerned with fitting into society @trans Trans issues seem to be a transmuted issue whereby a tragic truth of reality, which can be observed in society, can begin to be addressed in the present time because of how far we have come. And though these nuanced, sensitive issues should call for a coalition of purveyors of reason and inquiry to scrupulously work through ideas with an open mind and a sound process to evaluate ideas, we they are instead represented im their most simplest terms, prone to paralyzing degrees of obfuscation, and championed by actors who are quick to demonstrate a loathesome disdain for ideas which do not immediately proclaim uniformity of thought. @topics Reinforcing the stereotypes that homosexuals deal with. Undoing the progress made for one community because the baseline demand for radical change and disruption has been elevated past the point of examining the nuances upon which our present progress has fundamentally required. Previous progress made to grant self determination, especially by those who have been most marginalized, is now replaced with a need to assemble and designate generic enumerates bearing key politically visible patterns sufficient to tally artifical tallies of justice, where the numbers themselves are the evidence of choice, and the tooling of choice itself is a distant heretical memory. Brute forcing conversations which demand that viable issues must be interlocked into one simplified position, and recasting any question of the depth and authenticity for such alignments as an admissision of intolerance towards both issues. Antibias training - assume victims thus assume the guilty Is it always acceptable to ask for evidence? When is denial proof of guilt? Racism? When is agreement proof of consent for undefined manipulation? When is semantic disagreement evidence of class corruption, or a doomed interface of epistimology borne out of one's immutable characteristics? Guaranteed to be legitimate, at least in name How is standard of evidence the tool of a class or group? There is a pervasing idea that there exists a particular form of knowledge, encapsulated within a community, and that in order for such knowledge to be shared with the greater world requires that those bearing the characteristics associated with that community be computably present in specific quantities. If that's a reality bound to the typing of knowledge itself, then the corollary is that the knowledge is intrinsic to the characteristics of the members of that community, and that thus this knowledge could only be understood and wielded by the members of that community. In order for that to be true, one would need to assume that this knowledge cannot be understood by members of other communities, and that the sharing of knowledge is based only extrapolating an evaluation of power by group. What this means is that in order for knowledge to be shared, the best we can hope for is a neverending battle for power, and not the sharing of ideas themselves. What sort of conversation can teach and share ideas, if the presumption is that each side's knowledge is, by nature of the characistics associated with each group, confined. It's not just in your best interest to act in such a manner so as to not allow yourself to be set back by those who don't truly want to see you succeed. It's your responsibility. If truly you recognize that there are both good and evil, joy and tragedy, being experienced in the world, then surely you must desire to maximize the good and the joy. How do you do this? Do you believe you can make a difference? Are you able to tilt the scale, so to speak. Are you capable of illiciting a perceptible change, by any any temporal measure? Perhaps you have estimated the superlative affect of one's existence, towards diminishing tragedy, and the valuation came up too short. Is there a measured degree of substantive reduction in tragedy too pathetically dismal to be worthy of concern? If it's not valuable enough, then it follows that there must be something else that is more valuable. More deserving of our most precious time. What is it to be courageous? Why must we be courageous? What is conflated as courage? What is labelled as courage without qualification? Is there a method of critical analysis by which we can assert that a state, belief or behaviour is courageous? What is cowardice? Is it out of fear? Special knowledge? Understanding that pain can follow if one does not operate within a range of actions that are motivated and affected by fear? Who claims to have fear? Who claims to have courage? Is it courageous to lay claim to your fear? There are often initiatives which are sought, or declared as being worthy to be undertaken, as a measure of courage. What is an example of an initiative, claimed as a courageous endeavour, which might more likely be borne out of fear itself? What of a faux-courage endeavour, which claims to be relevant because of irrational and unwarranted fear, that is itself conceived of and motivated by fear? Where do we draw the line? An act of courage is an act performed steadfastly in spite of one's fear of a consequence to which one is aware. That is to say, the actor in question has acknowledged in their conscious thought what specific consequence can result from the action, but is committed to performing that action because the action is believed to yield value. Some might hypothesize that many acts are courageous, or that there are small acts of courage and that these acts may form a sum of greater courage, or greater value. While there may be some sense to this belief, it may be premature to conclude as much. If one were to deconstruct a modest act of participation in a movement to which one pledges an allegiance, facilitated through a belief of congruence in ideals, or a belief in the power of a movement's symbols, then one might be inclined to clarify the notion of its consequences. If, for instance, the consequences were found to be within a range of social discomforts, such as having to endure words to which one would normally not wish to be exposed, but without a realistic expectation that such a consequence also contains a threat to ability to thrive or, even survive, then some logic should compel one to dutifully make a distinction of risk. One will argue against this weighting of clashing consequences, especially if a dichotomy of ideals can be conceived, on the basis that the bias to protect one's ignorance, or retain a form of obedience which has become essential to one's rhythm of being, might manifest the most pronounced bond within the covalence of one's interwoven conception of reality. And though this predilection may, too, be one for which some degree of sense might lurk in support, it is acutely susceptible to the same pitfalls which predicate its formulation. This leads us back through a neverending cycle, perhaps a human one, or perhaps just one bound to the biologic or through some finite system sporting a means of intelligent (and not necessarily at the level of Einstein) reflection. This cycle is a longstanding position, and an eternally challenged one, that in order to aim towards truth, one must always embrace the conflict of exposing oneself to the strongest representation of ideas which one believes to be in defiance of those ideas to which one is allegiant. If truly one is allegiant to these ideas, then they wish to represent them with the robust and exhaustive understanding.