Some of this makes a bit of sense, but it still leans heavily on perception by others, rather than respecting what people know about themselves. This does not seem to be what many transgender persons want.

I’ll think about it.

using ciswomen and transwomen makes you sound like a TERF.

What would be a correct way to distinguish between the two?

• “Woman” seems like it works refer to both, to be used in the majority of cases when the distinction is irrelevant.

• I don’t want to say “natural” women, or “real” women, as even someone as thick as me can see that’s insulting.

• It seems that using the prefix for both makes them equal.

What do you think world be more appropriate?

it’s impossible for Black people to not pass as Black because it’s been proven they experience racism based on an immutable characteristic.

But they would suggest that as soon as we discover a way to change that characteristic, transrace world be valid.

Further, while gender identity may not be based on appearance, the way one is treated is very much based on appearance. If I look male, I get treated as male. If I look female, I get treated as female. If I look like one, but insist I am the other, people tend to have disagreements between their deliberate and automatic behaviors. (Well, the same people do, anyway.)

I can’t think of a good way to prove it, but I am legitimately curious about this topic. I’m never happy with the answer “because this one is right, and that one is wrong.” There needs to be reasons why.

maybe stop comparing race and gender then.

Isn’t the entire premise of the post that someone is seeing parallels here, and would like to understand why the similarities are not meaningful? As I said, I agree that transracial people are being silly, but I haven’t seen an argument here that can’t be used against transgender people.

trans women only pass because we’re women.

But there are plenty of transwomen who don’t “pass” despite being women. But they should still be treated as women. Hell, there have been at least a few reports of ciswomen who couldn’t pass as women, at least to sufficiently assholish observers. On that basis, I don’t think we can use “passing” as a factor to determine people’s identity.

I’m advised that there is no scientific or genetic basis for race. I’m a little unclear on how “ethnicity” is different from “race.”

All of them seem to be social constructs.

So, as a white person, I cannot pass as black, so I can never expect people to treat me like I’m black?

Don’t get me wrong, I think the idea is silly, but all the arguments I’ve seen in this thread are a word-swap away from being a bad argument against transgender people.

What’s the essential difference?

Problem is that “race” isn’t just cultural. How you will be treated definitely depends on how other people perceive your “race” and subsequently it will shape your life reality

But surely how you will be treated definitely depends on how other people perceive your “gender” and subsequently it will shape your life reality?

Everything you described up there sounds exactly like “cultural.”

Information flow can never go backwards. There’s plenty of examples of reporters or even social media compromising military operations. In at least a few cases, it has lead to the destruction of military assets. Once broadcast, the damage is done.

Trying to force reporters to think hard about what they are broadcasting is a good thing, from the point of view of national defence.

Is it normal to allow people to send military information to your enemy?

I’m not a huge fan of either of the two belligerent, but this is not exactly an unreasonable position to take. And they are at least putting reporters on notice.

I picked it up from an episode of Deep Space Nine. Good times.

I thought I was wrong, once. But I was mistaken.

And we provide Israel weapons to bomb Gaza.

That doesn’t always work.

We used to have an agreement, didn’t we? What happened to it?

Oh. Right.

Are they running out of people to murder in Gaza? Or do they just need someone to fight back, so they can look oppressed?

There was a scene involving some vey angry, but peaceful protesters surrounding a government building. A small team of police was ordered into the crowd. Not to attack, just to patrol, to open a little corridor so people could pass. But that was six guys in riot gear pushing their way through the people.

Even in the best possible circumstances, that’s gonna cause a little trouble, and these were not the best possible circumstances. Fruit was thrown. Maybe a bottle or two. The police are tense. The people are tense.

And a government agent, working for the guy who ordered the cops out there, shot one of them. The cops reacted defensively, and struck at the crowd, trying to get to safety. The crowd fought back. Things quickly got out of hand.

And the stormtroopers were standing by, waiting for the word.

It was a setup. An incident was forced to happen. It might have happened even without the sniper. Just force the police into the crowd, and sooner or later, someone will do something stupid.

On the same way, the NG troops might be deliberately pressed into a position where they legitimately think they are defending themselves, but no single order will seem like “crossing the line” to them. Stand here. Hold the line. Push the crowd out of this area.

I hope it doesn’t happen. But the metaphor of boiling the frog is apt.

But I think there is a moral imperative that says “do not obey immoral orders”

Is it immoral to get on a plane, and go sleep on the floor somewhere?

Again, it’s one thing to expect them to reject orders they know are illegal, such as firing on civilians. It’s another thing entirely to expect them to reject orders the legality of which may be a supreme court case next week.

This isn’t complicated. You either choose to obey an illegal order and threaten/attack other American citizens, or you don’t.

Would you be willing to risk ten years in prison that a military judge will agree that an order to go stand somewhere is illegal?

As much as i hate what Trump is doing, I don’t expect any enlisted man to refuse orders to go somewhere. The legality of that order is debatable, but following it does not cause any immediate harm. It’s not a good risk to take.

Refusal to follow orders will come when the order is so clearly illegal that there can be no question, and when following that order is something that can’t be undone. An order to fire into the crowd, for example.

Of course, no such order will be given. I assume we have all seen Andor, yes?