[she/her, all feminine pronouns]

  • 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2023

help-circle
rss



  • I can see the reasoning, but i think making the ban more surgical in nature would be a better approach, ie lifting the ban for specific things such as research and outreach. I think lifting the ban outright sends the message that if enough places discriminate then its ok. Atkins mentioned making personal connections, and i do think thats important, but im not sure that lifting the ban completely is the best way to go about forging personal connections. That being said, im not sure what would be the best way, and a mediocre idea is better than no idea.

    Id like to see a migration fund and social net fund for people fleeing discriminatory legislation, but that is a whole lot more work to implement than bans like this one.






  • I appreciate your point aboutcondemning peoples discomfort, its definitely a sensitive area that needs care. To be clear, everyones discomfort is valid, but its how we react to that discomfort that I would take issue with. Restricting other peoples expression of love because of my own discomfort seems wrong (with exception of fluids/infection risks/etc, as you named).

    I suppose to me it depends on the intention of the space; if the intention of a space is specific and pda is interfering with that intention, thats an issue. Especially when its a mandatory shared space like work, where you have to show up and cant avoid things.


  • Well, the attitude of the person you encountered is problematic for a few reasons. The most common is that its almost never applied evenly due to the sexualization of queer bodies; two straight people holding hands or flirting or is fine, but a queer couple doing the same is “flaunting their sexuality”. To some, a trans woman just existing is “flaunting sexuality” due to how theyve been trained to think of and conceptualize trans women.

    But assuming the person isnt a hypocrite, its still problematic, because what theyre talking about is a large range of behaviors, ranging from “no sex in public but kissing etc is ok” to shomer negiah to full segregation based on sex. Many (tho not all!) humans are sexual beings with sexual desires and motivations. To say that they cannot express that aspect of themselves in public at all is to prevent them from being their full selves in public. Thats not to say that people should be able to just have sex whereever they want, but that people should be able to express the feeling “i like and am attracted to you” in public (within the bounds of consenting adults, of course).





  • not a subscriber so cant read the article linked, but its not exactly “man shall not lay with boy”, but “man shall not lay with male”, which some posit (if i remember right) refers to a practice in ancient greece of “man” (a class, allowed to own property, etc) taking a male lover, often fairly young/underage. This is supported by it matching the language used in ancient greece, and all other shalls and shall-nots in the torah referring only to man and/or woman, not male/female.

    Edit:

    Found the passage, leviticus 20:13, forbids יש (man) from laying with זכר (male).

    Edit 2:

    Found the opinion piece