Seriously. What a depressing and dehumanizing view of the world. I moved away from my entire social circle two years ago, and it's been extremely rough. I knew people here when moving, and have made good friends, but it's not the same. I miss the deep interactions and just the shared experiences I had with all my friends back home - I seriously consider moving back pretty much every single day because of it. Discord and other messaging apps are nothing but a simulacrum of actual interaction. Physical interaction is what matters; I've become more and more convinced of that recently - and more and more Luddite because of it. But the real world is physical, not digital, and I think too many people forget that. Shame very few others seem to view this and keep pushing for tech that'll make us more and more disconnected for little upside (looking at you, chatbots).
Deep, in person social connection is a must and I truly question whether the GP is as well off without it as they think they are.
> I was gaslighting myself for a while that they were just busy, but when I heard about a couple of social things that I wasn't invited to, I realised that the friendships weren't on hold, they were hanging up.
I feel this. It's incredibly painful to make that kind of realization and it's hard not to be resentful about it
This happened to me and I was bitter about it for about 2 years, should've been in counseling but didn't even realize I was bitter
Sorry you experienced something similar. It sure is unpleasant. I can feel the bitterness but I don't think I'm ready to admit I can't work through it myself. Hope things are on the up for you.
"Work through it myself" is almost a contradiction in this case. Definitely look into getting some form of counseling you can afford.
Another thing you can do in parallel is reaching out to other friends/acquaintances you might have lost touch with. Tell them honestly what you appreciate about them and that you'd like to revive the friendship.
In both cases you'll feel awkward and uncertain. It's normal. Also, don't expect any single relationship to fulfill your unmet needs. But making yourself vulnerable to others is the beginning of "working through it yourself".
> I moved to the US (Bay Area) about 10 years ago after having spent much of my youth elsewhere, and to this day, I haven't been able adjust to the lack of informal social interactions compared to where I'm from. I really tried as well to see if it's me who is not able to fit
In the same boat. In HS and college, would have somewhat frequent get togethers and then COVID came and ruined it
Idk if the bay area is just like this or if I'm just going through a phase. It's probably just me
I would think Bay Area might be better than other places given the diversity. I spent a couple of years in North Carolina before moving here, and that experience was not good for me
Regulation can be made very broad and up to interpretation by judges though.
You could setup something like "Circumvention of facial recognition using dedicated technical devices at demonstrations is considered disguising at a demonstration and follows the same laws" in germany.
And sure, this would result in a lot of lawsuits, discussions, escalations through different courts while the regulation is being tested - and it might be struck down entirely - but it would stand for a while and strike down _all_ workarounds.
Sure, a few people will always do that, skirting the borders of the law. But I don't want a situation where 99% of the population is constantly surveilled while 1% finds workarounds. I want to solve the problem, I want surveillance to die in the mainstream, and in this space new regulation moves faster than mainstream adoption of new tech.
nowhere in that thing do I see any mention of things like work life balance, it's just a bunch of claptrap about "infrastructures of oppression". Whatever that's supposed to mean
no wonder it's a small union. No economic incentives? No thanks
> The term "transition" as used here is a euphemism that covers interfering with a child's puberty in a way that is likely to sterilize them for life if the treatment persists, and surgical destruction of breasts, and in some cases, genitals.
> I think most people, understanding the reality of this in stark terms, would be dead against children transitioning.
The only reason why this hasn't been outright banned for minors yet is because older voters don't know what's happening.
It's funny, I see a NYT article that literally just repeats these things out loud so that everyone can see what's happening, and then they get attacked for just describing what's happening
What's being done right now is so damning, no criticism is necessary. Only visibility. The people who want to hide facts from the public can only do this for so long
> but then actually mean something else “kids shouldn’t be allowed to transition” and then introduce legislation to that effect.
Minors aren't capable of consent. The treatments have permanent side effects and lead to sterilization. One of the drugs used to aid in "transitioning" is lupron, which is also used to sterilize sex offenders
The only reason why any of this is allowed to happen is because the general population doesn't see what's happening. Criticism or "explanations" aren't necessary, all that's needed is visibility so that everyone can see what's being done and vote accordingly
Which is why the permission of their parents acts as a limit on what they're able to agree to, in this case as in all others.
> The treatments have permanent side effects
Yes, that's the point.
> lead to sterilization. One of the drugs used to aid in "transitioning" is lupron, which is also used to sterilize sex offenders
This is pure bad faith fear mongering. It doesn't matter what else the drugs could do. Titanium is used in missiles, chemotherapy drugs can be used for euthenasia. None of those are what we're talking about, so talk about what we're talking about not some other unrelated thing.
> The only reason why any of this is allowed to happen is because the general population doesn't see what's happening.
There's no "general population" this is being slyly pushed on. People are making decisions within their families. Each individual is making choices with medical consideration and the guidance and, if a minor, ultimately the permission of their families and doctors.
"Allowed" is a telling choice of words though! You're advocating for a state-enforced limit on what people are allowed to choose for themselves.
---
And additionally, and very seriously, wake the fuck up and pay attention. The anti-trans moral panic is the tip of the spear of fascism in north america. You had a clean chance to see that and change course last year when Putin explicitly used anti-LGBT reasoning as part of his justification for the invasion of ukraine! Look at what Orban is up to, what comes along with this rhetoric. Look at what you are being used to accomplish.
> "Allowed" is a telling choice of words though! You're advocating for a state-enforced limit on what people are allowed to choose for themselves.
To children. What people are allowed to do to children
> Which is why the permission of their parents acts as a limit on what they're able to agree to, in this case as in all others.
If a parent comes forward and says "I consent to my child getting sterilized", should that be the only criterion necessary? You said "all" here, so you think that the case I provided is also covered?
> The anti-trans moral panic is the tip of the spear of fascism in north america
> If a parent comes forward and says "I consent to my child getting sterilized"
Is that happening? We're not trying to formulate a generalizable moral framework here, we're responding to a concrete set of conditions experienced by actual living people.
We're inserting ourself into a specialized medical practice, against the wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them. Why are we doing that? Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families?
> Would you describe Sweden as a fascist country?
Yeah kinda actually. Unlike most people with internet opinions of scandinavia I have actually lived there with a non-white spouse and they are racist as fuck. I wasn't surprised at all to hear they decided to euthanize old folks during covid and I wouldn't be surprised if they take a hard right swerve in the next decade either.
> wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them.
Not "people", "children", and we frequently disregard the wishes of children when it comes to their health and wellbeing regardless of how they feel about it.
We (adults) do this because society has already collectively decided that children are not mature enough to make the best decisions regarding their health and wellbeing.
When we decide that the children's (in this case pre-pubescent children), consent is irrelevant to them going to school, or having sex, or taking nude selfies, or getting a boob-job because they are not mature enough to provide meaningful consent, then you can be pretty fucking sure that we, collectively, as a society, aren't going to suddenly decide that pre-pubescent children are making an informed decision about things like chemical and/or literal castration.
Seriously, you really think that a group that is considered too undeveloped to consent to a boob-job is still developed enough to consent to sterilisation?
It's funny that you mention that because cosmetic surgery like breast enhancement and reduction are performed on minors an order of magnitude more often than anything having to do with gender presentation. I assume you spend a proportionate amount of time and energy fighting that practice?
And we allow minors to participate in all kinds of potentially harmful or regrettable things, with parental consent. Working as actors, playing sports that risk brain injury, using firearms, and yes, getting cosmetic surgery.
This isn't a new category of thing we're allowing minors to do. Why suddenly the strict consideration by outsiders who never cared about any of those other things?
The people cultivating this moral panic have admitted that it is a step on the way to a complete ban on trans healthcare and a crackdown on the existence of trans people. First make it impossible for minors, then under 25, then everyone.
Again you cannot just ignore that context and pretend that, ah, well, nevertheless, I just really think this one thing is important for this specific reason.
> It's funny that you mention that because cosmetic surgery like breast enhancement and reduction are performed on minors an order of magnitude more often than anything having to do with gender presentation. I assume you spend a proportionate amount of time and energy fighting that practice?
You say "minors" when I clarified "children" to mean "prepubescent children".
There is no way that pre-pubescent children are getting boob-jobs at the rate you claim they are.
Because we aren't talking about minor children in general. We're talking about prepubescent children.
And we frequently (like in all the examples I gave) ensure that, even with parental consent, they can't do certain things. Like sex.
> This isn't a new category of thing we're allowing minors to do.
Yes, it is. Irreversible changes purely based on the feelings of the prepubescent child and nothing else aren't allowed, your strawman notwithstanding.
> Why suddenly the strict consideration by outsiders who never cared about any of those other things?
Sorry, outsiders? Lot's of people cared about prepubescent children enough to enforce that those children go to school, that they are not allowed to have sex no matter how much their parent claims "But they asked for it!!! They feel ready for it!!!"
Seriously, we ignore the wishes of prepubescent children all the time, because they are not in a position to provide informed consent.
> Again you cannot just ignore that context and pretend that, ah, well, nevertheless, I just really think this one thing is important for this specific reason.
No. That's what you are doing. This is your single issue. I'm just pointing out that, collectively, society has already agreed that prepubescent children cannot make their own health decisions.
You are here whining that you should be able to petition prepubescent children so that they can give consent. In reality, they have no ability to give consent because we (society) took it away from them.
My "single issue" is not having a far-right coalition use a protect-the-children anti-trans moral panic affecting at most a few thousand people to mobilize a fascist takeover of my country.
In five years it has gone from "we just really care about female youth sports ok?" to "protect the children" and now already we are starting to see the first restrictions on adult trans healthcare and bans on queer public life.
If you were ignorant of that you'd be a fool, but I don't think you are which makes your support of it much more sinister.
And the wild thing is you don't even need to go through all this trouble! You could just say trans people squick you out and you'd prefer they not exist. There would be no consequences, it's now a mainstream position thanks to credulous supporters of these policies.
So if I oppose irreversible changes to prepubescent children, then I'm anti-trans? Someone should've told me when I spoke out against both male and female circumcision.
/s
I'm focusing on prepubescent children and you are going on about unrelated stuff.
For the last time, a prepubescent child is unable to give consent to castration, sterilisation and other irreversible changes.
The trouble is, your argument that the people who are against sterilisation of 9 year olds are transphobic is simply nonsense, and you're too emotionally connected to trans-as-a-political stance to see the human issues involved.
In a remarkable fit of irony, you're displaying cold indifference to humans, all the while yelling that they must take your feelings seriously.
I'm trying to get y'all to see that this isn't an isolated thing. The anti-trans moral panic you've gleefully taken up is part of a broader far right movement to crack down on queer and minority people in public life.
Because our wishes conflict with their economic motives
> the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them
Again, children who aren't able to consent
> Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families?
The same reason why I think the distribution of opiates should be tightly regulated. Because I see something that's inherently wrong, and I see corporations benefitting from it
"After careful application of my Logic, I have decided that I support precisely these two restrictive policies that also, separately and completely coincidentally of course, harm some of the most marginalized and vulnerable members of society."
Like, this is just not credible sorry. There is a neofascist moral panic being used to justify crackdowns and violence against this group right now. That's where we are and that's where your justification of support needs to start from.
