@thegayrabbi's banner p

thegayrabbi


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 April 04 15:49:26 UTC

				

User ID: 2311

thegayrabbi


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 April 04 15:49:26 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2311

I don't particularly love most trans activism, and I'm deeply troubled by a lot of the medical interventionism on the youth.

However, there is a sense that certain factions or cultures of conservative men (of varying races and ethnicities) have created defensive silos of culture against the encroachment of gender non-conforming men. These places could be certain gyms, certain sales teams, certain blue collar unions, or certain bars. The shared sentiment is that there's enough spaces for gay or trans people (these men can't tell the difference) and so they need to batten down the hatches and keep their exclusionary spaces free from the taint of homo (no pun intended).

I think that there's a good proportion of younger straight men who are very into this, a la the andrew tate fans, and there's another group of younger straight men who are completely over it, and don't want to engage in long or endless discussions of masculinity and how important it is to pick a side.

If i were to entertain the idea of corporate advertisement as culture war, I'd say the point of this ad might be to demonstrate how hateful conservatives actually are against gay and trans people, no matter how much they pretend its about protecting children and women's sports. The liberals could be seen as responding to this "it's just about protecting children and women" rhetoric by saying "okay, here's a drag queen in her proper place, advertising beer in a funny commercial, joking about not knowing what March madness is"

Then the conservative men start literally shooting cases of beer, and it becomes apparent that it's not really about protecting women and children, it's about establishing cultural silos of hatred towards gay and trans people.

It's a good tactic for uniting the gay and trans factions that have started to schism lately. At the risk of being snide, I think the QT BIPOCS realize the white gay tops aren't coming to the club if they keep calling them "the nazis of the LGBT community" for going to the gym. Also that white wealthy gay men are the ones with the social capital and mental fortitude to penetrate these conservative cultural silos.

Have you ever written this out so comprehensively before? I find it can be really transformative to externalize things like this. I bet your dad never wrote anything so introspective and self aware. I bet you've changed a little just from writing this comment.

Iran is not a compelling example for me. In fact, I find it to be the opposite of a compelling example. It is interesting to know that about Iran, however, so thank you for sharing.

Why do you ask? I don't really like sharing personal details on the internet without reason. There's more observers than most people think. And in certain (sneer based) circles, my username doxxes me.

Maybe it would be helpful if you shared a specific story example of this happening. I understand if you'd prefer not to.

To give you a quick hit, bad for society is when your therapist can mention surrogacy as a legal way out of your poverty.

To me it looks like the woman acting as s surrogate here gets a lot of social support and validation from being a surrogate. However, so do many prostitutes, and so would people paid to donate a lobe of their liver or a kidney. I think it should be the same thing. You can have sex for free, you can donate an organ, and you should be able to donate the act of surrogacy, but you shouldn't be able to do any of these things as a paid service because that's bad for society. And yes, for me that does include pornography where the actors are paid to have sex with each other on camera. Commercial pornography is causing a lot of problems. Labor laws (no pun intended) exist to prevent the rich from exploiting the working class beyond what is tolerable or humane, and requires society to create non-exploitive forms of work to continue functioning.

I see IVF as different because the child isn't denied a mother and the child's mother still gives birth to them, even if she's not the genetic mother. I'm not that worried about the perversion of nature, sacred or not.

I would not apply the same standard to women who use sperm banks or have absentee fathers. I don't see why you would think i would.

Giving up an egg or giving up sperm so a woman can gestate and give birth to a baby she will parent is not similar to being paid to go through the entire birth process and then leave forever.

Other users have made an excellent point as well, which is that every argument you can make for surrogacy can be made for legalizing selling your kidney, or a lobe of your liver, and kidneys aren't sentient, and your liver will eventually grow back. I'd appreciate if you could explain if you think people should be allowed to sell a kidney or a lobe of their liver if you think a woman should be able to rent out her womb.

Here's a question that I have about that handmaid's tale maternity photo shoot that you linked. Is this gay couple going to include that woman in the child's life as the child's mother? If not, is this weird picture going to be something that the child gets to look at in their lonely moments wondering who the woman was who gave birth to them, and what it would have been like to have her as a mother? Did this couple think any of these things at all themselves?

My biggest problem with surrogacy, as I stated in another comment, is that the child is left being forced to embrace parents who paid their biological mother and gestating mother to go away forever so that they could assume a full parental role.

It seems like that child is sort of compelled from birth to ignore the psychological and emotional implications of having two male parents who paid their mom to go away because they wanted to feel normal. That's why it's not the same as adoption, because the new family that you're supposed to embrace did not contractually obligate your biological parents to give you up.

I see another clear difference between these two situations in regards to the child's experience. If a mother gives her baby up for adoption, for whatever reason, the child must accept that his or her mother was not in a position to raise them, and find solace in the fact that another family was. This is just a sad fact of life that is part of the child's experience.

However, in the case of surrogacy, the child must understand that its parents wanted the position of sole parenthood so much that they compensated the child's actual birth mother in order to make her go away forever. And that is a weird twisted possessive experience that the child is left with in relation to its family that it will be growing up with.

So the child is trapped trying to establish normal familial relations with someone who saw it more as a possession than another human being who has a right to a relationship with a mother. And this is especially the case for gay male couples, who have unilaterally decided that their child can and will be happy enough to grow up without a mother just because they want to feel more normal and like they haven't lost out on any important American suburban experiences by embracing their gay lifestyle.

This is similar for lesbian couples, but not quite, given the number of men who seem happy to donate their sperm for a little bit of cash and don't seem bothered by the idea that they have children out there who they'll never know or care for. That is more analogous to the adoption where the child just understands that their father wasn't interested, but they do have parents who are.

The act of gestating a child and giving birth almost always, if not completely always, changes a woman's body forever, and is traumatic, and takes a lifelong toll, which is supposedly compensated for by a lifelong benefit of having a child to care for. I don't see how any one-time payment can be equivalent. I would be interested in hearing from a surrogate who really felt like it was.

My apologies for mixing up all the pronouns when referring to the child.

I have been offered propranolol but exercise and dance are very important to me, and I'm worried about a medication that literally doesn't allow my heart to beat fast enough. Did your doctor tell you anything about exercising while on that drug?

Nowadays many people feel a pressure to use time off from work to do something fun or leisurely. For some people, and I'm expecting this is particularly common to people who like this website, it can be helpful to accept that something fun might be something that other people consider work, like learning a new skill. Is there anything that you wish you knew how to do that you could start learning via YouTube tutorials? For me it was finally learning to code python.

I spent years trying to maximize my fun through various ways, but more recently trying to maximize my learning and challenging my brain has actually made me feel like I'm having a lot more fun on a day-to-day basis then when I was cramming as many leisure activities into one day as possible.

You could try going to more presentations, either in person or online, where you think the presenter might trigger this reaction in you. In a presentation, you're not usually in a position to act on this mood and you're not likely to say something dismissive and make someone feel bad. Then try to consciously observe how you feel these emotions, have this reactionary judgment response, and then also observe how a few minutes later the response might disappear as you return to the present moment. The more you can observe that these emotional reactions are temporary, and more about your and your past than the person in front of you, the more you can ignore them and let them come and go without affecting the rest of your behavior.

You might even make a worksheet where your mark the time of the reaction, make a note of your feelings, and then later mark the time when the feelings have faded. This can help keep you in an observational mode.

If your OCF wakes up in the middle of the night to pee, will they have to walk into your room while you're sleeping to use the bathroom and possibly wake you up? Because I would not enjoy doing that.

The rest of the considerations rely mostly on local social culture, so they could be fine or they could be onerous.

Speaking totally off the cuff, here are some thoughts about why banning tik tok has such wide consensus:

  1. A clear line between users and non users. Full disclosure: I refuse to download tik tok onto my phone, and therefore the only tik toks i see are the ones popular enough to make it onto other platforms. On the other hand, when i talk to people who use tik tok, that often appears to be the only, or primary, platform that they use for online interaction.

This leads to:

  1. A negative impression of tik tok's effects on its users and culture in general. From the non user perspective, tik tok pushes antisocial public behavior, both in terms of public antics and disengagement from social situations. I think there's definitely a bit of maliciousness in banning tik tok where the non users want to confiscate it from the people they perceive as allowing it to ruin society.

But i also thing a strong factor is:

  1. The obviousness of tik tok's product placement. I haven't actually heard anyone else remark on this as I have the above ideas, but for a very long time I have been put off by tik tok's constant marketing and product placement as "the place where everything important is happening" on the radio , on my favorite television shows, and every major website. I also feel like I've noticed that tik tok has no end of eloquent defenders available to push carefully focus-grouped talking points in its defense. For a while it was "tik tok just shows you what you want to see, my feed is just cooking videos" when people objected to the sexual exploitation of minors on the platform. When talk of regulating it emerged, it pivoted to "we need a law against all social media companies invasion of privacy!" And now it's "this bill is worse than the Patriot act and will put you in prison for using a VPN".

I think when you don't use it, it looks like a deliberate hypnotic assault on American society and feels like a platform thats designed to completely supplant the rest of the internet and capture and waste the attention of its users. Americans will embrace whatever tools they can to get rid of it, because its an app from a foreign adversary of America designed to weaken the next generation. The more you look into it, the more apparent that becomes.