there is no suggestion being made here

Yes there is. I asked you what you think compromise looks like in real world terms

You replied with this

So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.

That is quite explicitly a suggestion. Or rather, two suggestions.

In this suggestion, you use the word “women” as if it doesn’t apply to trans women. ie, you say “women’s safety” when you clearly means cis women’s safety. Dangerous, because it normalises the attack on trans women that they aren’t women. And dangerous because it implies that trans women are a risk to cis women, when in fact, trans women are more at risk of sexual assault and violence than cis women are! There is danger here, but it’s not coming from the trans women, and framing it as if it is, and as if that is something that should be compromised on is dangerous to trans people.

There is no compromise, when that compromise involves having our safety ignored, and our rights rolled back. That’s not compromise.

Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you

You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.

I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback

Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.

Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people

I’m Australian. I say something closer to “buh”, but I introduce vibrato to the sound down near my vocal cords, rather than by trilling the R in my mouth

“I think people should have respect” isn’t something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.

Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women’s safety, as if trans women aren’t part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.

And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.

The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don’t just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.

I’m also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven’t become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.

That’s why

Not quite. I grew up with a lot of racism that took time to undo and is still ongoing.

But that didn’t impact my kiddo directly as they’re not targetted by racism.

However, I found out that I’m adhd due to my kid being diagnosed, and I was out as queer before them. So we have intersections in common that we’ve both been working through at the same time.

Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.

I’m asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that’s what really matters.

Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.

That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…

i love Cachy! The performance tweaks are nice, but what I really like is the Cachy repositories and how quickly they’re updated, and how useful they are!

Exist as a trans person

Yep! Though now that I’ve seen that, I’ll use Data’s preferred pronunciation when talking about the character

Nope. Definitely don’t say it like that!

I don’t know, because I have no idea how the Star Trek character says it…

We still don’t know…

Is it federated/does it have social elements?

Instances that don’t have email approval, captcha or manual approval, tend to get defederated pretty quickly, because they attract spam bots

CachyOS, because I wanted something arch based due to the archi wiki and rolling releases.

My media boxes run Ubuntu, but that will change when they get rebuilt/replaced at some point, most likely to Debian

There will not be any corrective steps anytime soon, because the UK government, who would need to implement those steps, is actively disinclined to make them, because even though it’s less transphobic than the previous government, it is still doing transphobia for political reasons.

This is a setback for immediate protections, but my view is that this isn’t necessarily bad in the long term, so long as corrective steps are taken to address the root issue.

There will be no corrective steps.

it should spur on actually solving the issues

It won’t, because it was brought about to achieve the exact opposite

Why would I care what your uninformed opinion on my response to oppression is?

Judges hear the case that’s brought, not the agenda of the groups that bring things.

Uh huh.

If that were true, this wouldn’t be an overturning of a previous ruling on appeal. If this were not influenced by political bias, you wouldn’t get different results in different courts. Judges wouldn’t be “conservative” or “progressive”. Judges wouldn’t nearly all be straight, elderly and white.

They are though, because the appointment process is shaped by political perspectives, because the acceptable rulings are shaped by political perspectives and the cases that get seen and funded are shaped by political perspectives.

The fact that no trans people were called during the trial is shaped by politics.

The judges chose to read and rule that sex is “biological” and binary, despite the legislation making no mention of it being biological, and despite the biological understanding of sex being that is very much not binary… All of that, you guessed it, shaped by politics…

That’s really all I have to say about that part.

Good for you. Trans people don’t have that choice.