To my fellow brothers and sisters, if you're looking for a VPN then the three listed on https://www.privacyguides.org/en/vpn/ are pretty good services.

Mullvad would be my top choice. They'll let you sign up solely with an account number and cash.

Proton is 2nd or 3rd best. I still recommend them because of their Free tier. Disclaimer: Their CEO is a libertarian weirdo who is ok with Trump because Trump is also big on "personal privacy". However the company is controlled by a board of directors who are less insane.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1lzbkr7/head_mod_of_rtrans_tries_unsuccessfully_to/

Note: TL:DR at the way bottom

Subreddit background

/r/trans is a subreddit for both trans men and trans women to post about topics, their personal transitions or other things related to transgender.

Abbreviation breakdowns

For those not familiar with the transgender community, I’m going to list a few terms you’ll see in the post:

> * ftm - female to male. That is, a person who transitions from a woman to a man > > * mtf - male to female. A person who transitions from a man to a woman > > * Cisgender - A person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth. Ex: born a woman and lives life as a woman; born a man and lives life as a man > > * amab, afab - Assigned male at birth; assigned female at birth > > * trans masc - Short for trans masculine. Someone who is assigned female at birth, and whose gender is masculine or they are nonbinary (identifies as neither male or female) and expresses masculine traits

The original “divisive” post

Things kicked off when about a week ago, OP (who I will nickname bro77) posted a long informational post about the difficulties trans masc people encounter to both /r/lgbt and /r/trans.

Sometime within the week, the post on /r/trans got removed, so bro77 made a new post and also asked mods for clarification, but the mods were rude and dismissive.

> Mod comment: Your previous post was removed for talking about how trans men "are talked about and cared about so little that many people don't actually know the shit we go through." > > This is divisive to the community. > > You even called out the reason the post is divisive when you said "Please do not respond to this post with "Well I think trans men are talked about less because society sees them as confused women" or anything like that." > > You knew the post would bring in arguments. Posts that encourage fighting about who or why is oppressed are not allowed.

According to a comment post drama, bro77 said the mod mail messages were these:

> The rude comments from mods I got were the following: > > In my messages when I asked why my post was taken down, I was told it was because "sexual assault is not unique to trans men" in response to my post pointing out trans men's disproportionate rates of being sexually assaulted. I was also told that the dismissal of trans men "doesn't happen" and then I had two comments about my post being "oppression olympics" even though I clearly stated multiple times in my post that was not the point, and was very deliberate with my language to ensure I was not putting anybody down while trying to pull trans men up.

A separate comment thread has screenshots of the exact conversation here.

Community reactions explode

After the original post was removed, the second questioning post also gets removed for “bitching”, bro77 gets a temporary ban from the sub, and bro77’s post on /r/lgbt also gets locked for “divisiveness”. The /r/trans mods then started removing new posts about trans men and trans masc people en masse.

Some of the removed posts are here, here, here, here, and here.

A different /r/trans mod makes a new stickied post asking the angry sub to stop posting about removed posts:

> Stop With The Trans Man Post Removal Commentary > > We have now removed a dozen posts of people complaining about the one where a mod removed a post espousing how trans men are treated differently in trans circles and by the world. We have replied to the OP, explaining exactly how their post was divisive to the community. The post was also removed by a trans masc mod, so please stop saying it's oppression by the trans fem mods. > > We are actively monitoring the sub and removing any posts that are talking about this. These posts are not going to change our stance on the original post. We are not currently banning people for it if they only post once, though usually they would be for causing disturbances. However, those who continue to harass the sub and the mods with this will receive temporary bans. We are also not sending out removal notices for them, because every person posting it knows why it's being removed.

This removal drama spilled over into several different subreddits:

• /r/AnarchyChess: literally 1984, it gets worse, they locked r trans, and google dictatorship

• /r/OutOfTheLoop: what’s going on with the r/trans subreddit?

• /r/lgbt: mod post: Harmful Behavior That Needs To Stop, shouldn’t silence half the community, and I’m a trans man:)

• /r/mtf: wanted to say thanks, about the r trans situation, and TRANS MEN ARE MEN

• /r/ftm: Please be careful of r/trans right now, admitting that trans men are men isn’t divisive, and mod post: please keep discussion to this post

Bro77 gets unbanned from r/trans

After a talk privately with the mods, bro77 is unbanned and able to make a new post about the situation. In short, he accepts the apology from the mod who said he was “bitching” about getting his post removed, among other things. The mods decide to pin this post as well.

The mod who made the pinned post asking users to “stop with the trans man post removal commentary” comments in bro77’s thread here:

> Mod: From the exhausted mod who is really trying to figure out what to do: > > When I made my original post, I was unaware of the mod who actually did insult the OP in the comments. I thought they were talking about modmail, which I have personally been trying to manage for the last three hours, and I did not insult the OP in them. OP and I are discussing the situation now, and I would like to apologize to everyone for the inappropriate way one of our mods talked to the community. > > I really am not trying to silence anyone's voice. I'm sorry that's how things came across. But if we keep getting flooded with hate for the mods, the people who want to talk about their own stuff outside this issue are going to get drowned out, and that's not fair to the other members of the sub. And even if we reapprove the post, we're still going to get flooded by people who are angry it went down in the first place. I've been trying to figure out how to handle this for the last like three hours, and I don't know what I can actually possibly do to stop this. > > So, I guess if you want to rant at me here in the comments about how horrible I am for trying to figure out how to deescalate a situation that has gotten way out of hand, and that I shouldnt feel like crying in a corner right now because I don't know how to handle this, because I'm just a normal person who has had their Saturday afternoon turn into a shit show.... then go for it. If comments are removed on this post, it's because they've been sent to the queue for review, not because I am actively removing them. [downvoted]

“Bitching” mod apology post

After all of this drama and removals, the “bitching” mod makes a (now deleted) post apologizing for her behavior:

> This is the moderator who used the term "bitching." I am sorry. > > To be clear, I am not the mod who removed [bro77]'s original post which initiated this whole discussion, but I am the one who said he was "bitching" in the second post that they made to complain about the original removal. I do not believe that the original post was complaining in any way, just the second post where he complained about the removal. To the entire community, especially the trans men here, I am sorry for my choice of words. I had already privately apologize to [bro77], but felt a public apology would go a long way. > > I know there is no excuse, but I legitimately did not think about the implications of the use of that term when referring to trans men, and just meant it as a synonym of "complaining." Realizing that leaving the comment in place would not help the situation, I deleted it and the remainder of my comments in that post. > > After private discussion with [bro77], I now recognize how harmful that term is to use for a portion of the community that has faced misogyny in their lives, and I will not do so going forward. > > All I can ask for at this time is your your forgiveness. > > As I am currently on a voluntary break from moderating the subreddit (which has been in effect for a few weeks now), I can't take action on any posts or comments here, nor can I view or respond to Moderator Messages. Please direct any anger about the use of that term here, to me, and not the rest of the team, who I truly believe are doing their best to resolve this situation In the best way possible. I'm not going to comment on the original post removal since I wasn't involved in that decision at all and likely would not have come to the same conclusion. > > I absolutely believe that trans men are men and that they are a welcome part of this community, as does the remainder of this moderation team (who isn't entirely trans-fem). This is reflected in our rules which specifically address disparities and should be evidence by the amount of posts that historically exist discussing these issues and the removal of ones by trans-feminine people that try argue that we "have it harder." We absolutely do not. > > Thank you for reading all this, and I hope to build back your trust.

Bro77 writes a reply to this, which you can read here.

Apologies not accepted

The community dislikes both of these mods’ statements, and lets others know:

> Coward move to make the sub Restricted. Trans masc people matter, period.

> They’re still deleting posts and banning people from posting

> Im sort of shocked that you didn't know it was wrong to do in the first place, considering that OPs post was about micro aggression, violence, and Trans masc erasure. If you didn't delete the initial post, why did you feel the need to comment on their second post to tell them they were bitching???

> A trans man shouldn’t be chastised for complaining here either. Everyone should be able to complain because there’s a lot of fucking things to complain about while being trans.

Head Mod takes over

The head mod opts to make a post of their own apologizing for the entire situation. They have made bro77’s original post viewable again, and are going to make some rule changes to prevent drama bubbling up like it had. The head mod also asks that all criticism be directed to them instead of the other mods, who were all handpicked by them.

This mod also pins a comment for users to read:

> Head Mod: Hey, sorry I can't respond to everyone. I'll come back when I can tomorrow and respond more. I have had only about 8 hours of sleep in the last 72 hours, which isn't a great excuse, but I can't stay awake any longer. Please feel free to keep commenting and dming me, I'll respond when I can. Please go easy on the mods who are in the comments, they're good people.

In response to a comment about more trans masc moderators being introduced to the team:

> Head Mod: Ironically, in terms of active [mods], our team was 2 trans masc mods, and 4 trans fem, and 2 non-binary peeps. > > I think one trans masc mod just left though without telling me directly. I may be a bit salty about that, but that's on me for not being available today. [heavily downvoted]

> No offence, but if your reaction to a trans masc mod leaving in disgust over discovering how badly the mods you hand-picked have treated trans masc users, is to be salty, that's really not a good sign for things going forward.

Bro77’s request to be a moderator

Despite everything, bro77 indicated in edits to his unbanning post he would like to apply to be a mod. However, this hope is short lived, when he shares a reply he received from the mods:

> Editing to add: I am applying to be a moderator for this sub now. I hope something comes of this because I want to see this subreddit move forward in a way where we can all talk about our issues and a space can be made for everyone. Action must be taken. > > Second Edit: Here is the mod response to my mod application for this sub. I was hoping there would be more of an apology to come and more discussion about what happened from the mods, so we could be confident of progress being made in the sub. This response does not fill me with hope. > > "Your comment on r/ftm 's post 45 minutes ago about this does not give us much confidence in your ability to be a mod on our sub. You said you already unsubbed to trans subs, and you are still looking for another apology from us? You're also looking to be a mod of a sub that actively brigaded us." > > Lol. Imagine doubling down this hard instead of trying to move forward and help trans men feel comfortable. Truly a shame. I will not be trying to mod for this community as I believe it is a lost cause.

r/trans mod accuses a r/ftm mod of causing more drama

In bro77’s unbanned thread post, a mod from r/ftm responds to the pinned “exhausted” mod comment, saying the /r/trans mods were messaging only to get /r/ftm onto their side.

Exhausted mod reply:

> Trans Mod: No, actually. The modmail sent to your team about the situation was legitimately asking if the mods of other trans subs thought we were acting out of line, because nobody here was questioning the removal, but the sub was up in arms about it. The mod was legitimately asking for feedback to see if they misinterpreted the post from people who weren't raging at us. You could have replied to the modmail and said, "hey, this is spilling over here, and we think you misunderstood the post and your reasoning behind the removals for these reasons." Instead, you ignored us and made your own post, sharing private moderator information about the contents of the modmail, and essentially blamed our sub for being transphobic. [downvoted]

> Ftm Mod: The modmail you sent did not read like that at all. It honestly did read like you just wanted us on your side and to have us further take action against users posting on our sub. > > The contents of the modmail that was shared were honestly something we felt were not acceptable things to say, and we were shocked and disgusted with the blatant disregard for trans men/transmascs. We felt that because things were being deleted and hidden left and right, it was important information to provide.

Post from the trans masc mod who suddenly stepped down

As mentioned by the head mod, one of the trans masc mods stepped down without any notice. This mod did not engage in any of the discourse over the past day, however he made a post in /r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns2 about his leaving:

> By staying on the mod team I would've been just as culpable > > Disclaimer: I voluntarily resigned and I wasn't banned > > [2 image meme of the red and blue button decision; red button says “Leaving the r/trans mod team and sub at large”, and the blue button says “Staying on the mod team” > > second image shows pressing the red button, with text “Me, a (now former) mod of r/trans”]

Some comments from this former mod shed light on the true mod behavior at /r/trans:

> Former Mod: For starters, in June of 2024, there used to be a mod who had her own unrelated Discord server I was in for about 8 months (a different mod from the one that made that comment); who begged for money for the members of her Discord server and never paid them back. > > I managed to bring all the to the attention of the mod team using screengrabs of Discord DMs from the people that mod conned out of their money as evidence, and she was removed. > > Edit for important information: I was never under any confidentiality or agreements like that.

> Former Mod: To be honest I think that whole situation in June '24 was what started my suspicions of issues going on with how the server was being run. When I was on their dedicated moderator Discord earlier today, they essentially pretended that the mod who made that comment never did anything...

> Former Mod: I couldn't be complicit in such exclusivity, so I pretty much was like "screw y'all" and left. Idc care if I'm called a traitor or shit like that; I felt that stepping down from my mod position and unsubbing was the moral thing to do.

> Former Mod: The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was they didn't remove the mod who made that comment (y'all know the one)

Head mod removed “bitching” comment mod

If you dig down into the comments of the Head mod post, you will find a short comment about the “bitching” mod:

> Head Mod: nah I already permanently removed her

> Then why are none of you mentioning or talking about it. I read this head mods post twice and there’s no mention of it at all. This could have been done hours ago and you all as a mod team could have been getting the rest you keep making sure to mention.

> Head Mod: honestly because the only reason I'm still awake tight now is that my anxiety is p high and I need to make a proper post tomorrow [downvoted]

After effects of the drama

The Head mod states they have unbanned all users who were banned during the height of the drama, and a few hours later, the /r/trans sub is no longer restricted, which means community posting can begin again, so the first thing posted is a request for new mods who are trans and poc (people of color).

The head mod also writes and pins a comprehensive post addressing all that happened, and where things are heading to next for /r/trans. A notable quote from the post says “The mod thought [bro77’s original post] was created to intentionally sow division.”

Even more community drama

The sub users are unsatisfied with the head mod’s lengthy post, and are quite vocal about it. Unfortunately, posts also seem to be getting removed again, and one mod even decided to quit the team:

> I’m done. > > If this sub isn’t going to address the transmisandry, I’m not going to moderate it. The ModTeam needs change. If these concerns are addressed, I may consider rejoining.

Posts from users:

> Assuming they're not one of the two who have already been removed, what's the verdict on the moderator who also moderates a "gay conservative" subreddit?

> I’m sorry but if you see a post that lays out the facts of the bullshit we face as transmascs and your first thought it “omg this is going to sow division”, you have some bigoted opinions on transmascs

> Well, see, after we hire more minorities, we'll tokenize them and use them to shield the bad decisions we make because we don't understand how to make a safe space.

——————

TL:DR After a day of mass post removals, other subs engaging, and mod posts, the offending mod has been removed, the original commenter bro77 had his post viewable again, and the /r/trans sub is open for posting, but some posts are getting deleted again anyway.

A new subreddit called /r/trans4every1 was created as a safe space for all transgender people, since to some /r/trans appears to be unwelcome to trans men and trans mascs.

——————

Reminder not to comment in any of these threads, or message the /r/trans mods or other community moderators!

Edit1: In dramatic fashion, the mod who stated she was quitting is now not quitting the mod team

> An apology > > It was spineless of me to say I’d leave until change was made and then change my mind. That’s why I’m making this genuine apology. I’m so so sorry. > > I promise not to do anything like this in the future and understand if this post doesn’t do well

permalink by Teal_is_orange (↑ 773/ ↓ 0)

Girl Subscription Pill Monotherapy Under Tongue. 6 months after leaving the intro level dose.

The Trump Administration’s dangerous crusade against transgender and genderdiverse people has been facilitated by major political spending — with a boost from the meat industry.

In the last campaign cycle, the GOP spent a record-high of nearly $215 million on anti-LGBTQ political ads in both the presidential and down ballot elections. This included ads that relied on meat industry funding to compare transgender people to cattle and denigrate treatments that fall within gender-affirming care. These ads reflect a rhetorical trend in rightwing political campaigns: the use of language invoking meat to dehumanize transgender people — and then justify extreme anti-trans laws.

Take, for instance, cattle rancher Shawn Tiffany’s very explicit anti-trans ad in his bid for the U.S. House to represent Kansas' 2nd Congressional District in 2024. Billing himself as an “America first cowboy,” he wears a cowboy hat and shirt advertising his ranch, while standing outside a gleaming, white barn on a sunny day. He then goes on to make a convoluted metaphor, comparing the castration of cattle to gender-affirming care for minors — healthcare that is explicitly recommended by the American Medical Association.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFgg15SOclM

“In Kansas, we know the difference between a cow and a bull,” Tiffany says to the camera. “And Rocky Mountain Oysters are a real delicacy but castration is for cattle, not our kids.” (Rocky Mountain Oysters are a regional dish made out of the testicles of bulls, sheep and other mammals.) He then promises to voters that he will “ban boys from girls sports and bathrooms and stop the radical left from mutilating children. Cowboy Shawn Tiffany, conservative to the core.”

This grotesque language is trafficking in a common form of disinformation. The reference to “castration” is presumably referring to transgender surgery for minors, particularly bottom surgery — a procedure that is generally not performed on minors at all. The vast majority of trangender youth who receive gender-affirming care get it in the form of puberty blockers, which slow or delay the onset of puberty.

Yet the image of “castrating” youth lingers in the political imagination, driving misinformation about what gender-affirming care for young people typically entails.

Beef Industry Helped Fund Anti-Transgender, Pro-Meat Ads

Tiffany’s ad was paid for by his political campaign for Congress, whose top donors were all meat industry trade groups, indirectly funding anti-trans rhetoric. This included a $5,000 donation from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association PAC, the political committee for the primary trade association for the beef industry and another $5,000 from the Livestock Marketing Association PAC, the political committee of the largest membership organization in North America representing the livestock industry.

His campaign also received an individual donation of $3,435.35 from Amy Langvardt, who serves on the board that oversees the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Beef Checkoff program, designed to promote the demand for meat. He was also backed by local meat producers, including $6,600 from Scott Foote, the owner of Foote Cattle Company, which operates five cattle feedlots across Kansas, and $5,000 from Terry Nelson, who made headlines for building massive, unauthorized hog farms.

Tiffany didn’t respond to a request for comment. The Livestock Marketing Association, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Amy Langvardt of the Beef Checkoff program and the other campaign funders noted in this story also didn’t respond to a request for comment about whether they support the message of the anti-LGBTQ ad.

While Tiffany lost in the Republican primary, this rhetoric and disinformation reflects transphobic sentiment and legislation in Kansas and beyond. In February, Kansas became the 27th state to ban gender-affirming care for minors, prompting a lawsuit from Kansas teens and their families over their “unimaginable suffering” from being denied access to puberty blockers.

Kurtis Gregory, a State Senator in Missouri, drew on very similar rhetoric. In an ad for his 2024 campaign, Gregory wears a mesh trucker hat as he bounds through stalky, bright green fields in a wide-set truck, while a deep-voiced narrator spews transphobia: “Kurtis Gregory knows the difference between a bull and a steer, and he knows the woke mob threatens our children. That's why Kurtis Gregory led the fight to keep men out of girl sports,” referring to a bill he sponsored limiting transgender students from participating in sports.

Gregory, who won his election, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Like Tiffany, Gregory’s campaign for State Senate received substantial support from livestock and other agricultural groups, including an endorsement from the political action committee of the Missouri Farm Bureau, the primary trade and lobbying group for Missouri farmers and ranchers. This support isn’t exactly surprising, given that the Missouri Farm Bureau has quietly opposed LGBTQ rights for years, including gay marriage.

According to its 2023 handbook, the Missouri Farm Bureau also supports strongly enforcing anti-obscenity laws, which often target LGBTQ books in schools under vague, highly subjective bans on distributing “obscene” material to children.

The Latest Iteration of the ‘Sexual Politics of Meat’

Tiffany operates a cattle feedlot with the slogan of “faith, family and feed,” — a slogan that attempts to make the business of raising cattle synonymous with a vision of Christian conservatism and the nuclear family, which his ad takes a step further by framing trans people as a threat to this world.

It’s the latest iteration of what feminist scholar Carol J. Adams refers to as “the sexual politics of meat,” a framework for understanding meat as a symbol that enforces rigid, binary conceptions of masculinity and femininity, upholding the social order.

“The ‘sexual politics of meat’ reinforces the gender binary,” Adams tells Sentient. “Meat-eating functions as a marker that legitimates the gender binary system,” because ‘real men’ eat meat while men that eat tofu are “seen as emasculated or feminized, sissies, etc.” It’s a social order that transgender people, by nature of their existence, threaten to upend by revealing gender as fluid and mutable.

This strict allegiance to the gender binary, encoded even in our eating habits, is at play in these extreme ads attacking trans people, according to Adams who reviewed the ads for Sentient. The ads draw upon the symbolic language of meat — a marker of stability, masculine dominance and gender conformity, according to Adams — to cast trans people as outsider threats to children, rural communities and the world as they know it.

“These extreme reactions show us the threat to their rigid understanding of their place and everyone else’s in culture,” says Adams, referring to the language used in anti-trans political ads. This vilification of trans people betrays the fragility of the gender binary. “If we pull at the thread, the fabric of an oppressive culture unravels. So that's part of the appeal of Trump — the authoritarianism that gives them the assurance of their place.”

Both Tiffany and Gregory’s political ads do not rely on any medical information or research to support their views. Instead, they are relying purely on symbolic associations with meat, cattle and gender to frame transgender people as a threat to children and “traditional” American families. Like any good advertisement, they are both creating a problem and then selling a solution: a cattle-farmer-turned politician who can produce meat, a symbolic offering of a return to a more stable world where “faith, family and feed” reign supreme.

“Meat in the meal is a reassurance of the stability of a patriarchal world, and a patriarchal world is anti-trans, so it's going to be part and parcel of the need to have meat at a meal,” says Adams. “Because meat is the symbol. It's a mirror. It’s a reflection.” Her book, “The Pornography of Meat” draws extensively on ads to show how meat-eating is depicted as the epitome of masculine in American culture, a flex of virility.

The meat industry may also have a financial stake in funding ads that uphold this gender binary. After all, men are the meat industry’s primary consumer base, consuming more meat than women across nearly all countries, according to a 2024 study. But gay and bisexual men are a noted exception, consuming less red and processed meat than their heterosexual male counterparts — an eating habit that may reflect a different relationship to masculinity too.

Beef’s Unique Role in American Culture

It’s also no coincidence that the ads reference cattle, which is not only associated with masculinity but also the violent settling of the West and construction of white American identity, as media scholar Christopher Sebastian Mc Jetters has observed:

“American conservatives do have a weird relationship with fruits and vegetables, and that's because animal products, especially beef, hold a unique place in the construction of white American identity,” he said in a social media post. “The expansion of the cattle beef complex is one of the primary drivers of manifest destiny, or the belief that the westward expansion of European settlers and genocide of Native Americans was ordained by God himself.”

[

View this post on Instagram

](https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHeOa72oM1F/)

A post shared by Christopher Sebastian (@the_christopher_sebastian)

The symbol of cattle then eases the rightwing fear of white American identity, rooted in supremacy, under threat. “When you see conservative people, especially men, getting horny for meat, meat, meat, that's a dog whistle for white supremacy,” Sebastian Mc Jetters added.

While both Tiffany and Gregory use meat metaphors to dehumanize transgender people, they also rely on the symbolism of meat to legitimate their own white American masculinity — to tell a story about their own identity in contrast to the transgender people they vilify. “They aren't just using these examples to reinforce their homophobia and transphobia, but the examples offer a very proud reminder of their power over animals,” says Adams.

While casting transgender people as outsiders, these political ads also frame Tiffany and Gregory as insiders through their mastery of animal agriculture.

As Gabriel Rosenberg, an associate professor of Gender, Sexuality & Feminist Studies at Duke University tells Sentient, “Demonstrating power over animals is a way of demonstrating authenticity. It's a way of demonstrating something like community membership or citizenship within the specific context of cowboy culture or rancher culture.”

Rosenberg also notes that there is a strain of Christian belief that views animals as on earth for humans. Under some interpretations of Christian dominionist theology, which increasingly underpins the political aspirations of rightwing Americans, he explains that, “God gives humans dominion over the earth, and particularly over non-human life, and as a result of that, we are superordinate to animals, and that they are there for our use.”

This may lead to the idea that it is not only justifiable to kill animals, but also to control their sexual reproduction through castration and other means. “So they might argue something like ‘it's actually consistent to say that we can modify the sex of animals in ways that we should not do to humans, simply because of that hierarchical difference,’” says Rosenberg.

The ads also acknowledge and justify an aspect of animal agriculture that is rarely discussed in the public: the process of reproduction on farms is far from natural, and is reliant on many of the same technologies used by humans.

“Animal agriculture is about the organization and management of animal sex. That's what it is — that’s the fundamental task of animal agriculture,” says Rosenberg. “Technologies like IVF, artificial insemination, cloning, all sorts of hormonal treatments — these are all things that have deep histories within livestock agriculture.” Of course, the end goal of these technologies is fundamentally different when used on animals to maximize reproduction.

In fact, the routine use of artificial insemination on animal farms — which requires forcibly ejaculating and inserting sperm into animals — so closely resembles bestiality that it is included as an exemption under most state anti-bestiality laws. “Cognitive dissonance has haunted these statutes from their inception,” Rosenberg and co-author Jan Dutkiewicz wrote in The New Republic. “Bestiality, a highly stigmatized act, lends itself well to loud denunciations but not so much to moral consistency.”

This same cognitive dissonance is on display in the political ads. In attempting to denounce trans healthcare as castration, the politicians also strain to make the moral argument that castration, in the case of farm animals, is good. Similarly, these same politicians concerned about “obscenity” in LGBTQ books are putting out ads that make graphic reference to animal castration, mutilation and eating testicles — images that are far more explicit than anything in banned books like Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer: A Memoir."

The Fragility of the Gender Binary

The escalating assault on trans rights has coincided with a renewed frenzy over meat, particularly from the rightwing and online influencers. Joe Rogan, one of the most influential figures shaping rightwing and masculine culture, has been one of the largest proponents of the carnivore diet. “I’m obsessed with cooking meat over fire. I get prepared for it. I make sure I’m hungry before I cook it,” he wrote in a post.

Rogan has flinched at the very thought of associating with soy. “I don’t do anything with soy,” he said during a 2020 podcast episode. “People call you a soy boy. If you're a Republican, people call weak men soy boys,” he said. The consumption of soy is perceived as a transgression of gender norms in rightwing circles, which even Rogan acknowledges. “Soy is one of the rare foods that's actually attached to being a bitch,” he said.

This reveals a deep insecurity — a fear of failing in the performance of masculinity by simply consuming the wrong food.

Christopher Sebastian Mc Jetters links the rise of the carnivore diet to the broader rise of fascism, which is also rooted in deep fragility, as he observed in the same social media post: “During times of economic, social and political instability, more and more people would find security in the warm cloak of traditionalism.” Jetters contrasts this with “plant-based eating,” which is “perceived as non-conformist behavior that's synonymous with progressivism in the left.”

Political attack ads on transgender rights — specifically the use of grotesque comparisons to animal castration — isn’t about protecting the health of children or trans people. It’s about upholding a social order and gender binary that are fundamentally unstable, observes Adams. Rather than viewing these ads as displays of virility; she sees them as displays of fragility.

“The gender binary is so fragile that it has to be constantly reinforced — it's sort of like trying to protect the sandcastle,” says Adams. “There would be no need to assert these sorts of things if it were a given in society.” But the gender binary isn’t natural. Instead, it requires pouring money into network television ads to uphold.

Correction: an earlier version of this post misattributed authorship of an article to the illustrator.

This article originally appeared in Sentient at https://sentientmedia.org/anti-trans-campaigns-keep-returning-to-the-politics-of-meat/.

The U.S. Solicitor General has urged the Supreme Court to accept Cox Communications' petition in a landmark piracy liability lawsuit. The USSG argues that ISPs are not necessarily liable for pirating subscribers and warns that the current precedent may lead to disconnections for many innocent subscribers. At the same time, the USSG urged the court to deny a petition from the opposing music companies, which seeks to expand the current liability verdict.

Sharing information on social media is common for many people nowadays, but it's not always without consequence. In some cases, simple 'likes' can be used as evidence in court, as a Florida man recently discovered. His Star Wars and Minion 'likes' were presented as evidence to support allegations he may be a prolific BitTorrent pirate.

You should assume that dbzer0 will eventually get a legal request to turn over records.

I would like to add terminal sounds to my computer. Think the sounds on terminals in Fallout or Starfield. Has anybody already attempted the project and how did they achieve success?

In Leviathan Wakes, Miller is shown eating fake beans with real rice. But why? My knowledge of agriculture is below zero but I feel like if you can supply real dried rice in space you could also supply real dried beans as well.

An hour later, his blood warm with drink, he heated up a bowl of real rice and fake beans—yeast and fungus could mimic anything if you had enough whiskey first

I'm sure everybody can recall Prax's confession to the free navy:

“The thing you need to understand,” he said, an irrational, intoxicating courage blooming in his heart. “Biological equilibria? They’re not straightforward. Never.” “Equilibria,” the man repeated. “Yes. Exactly. Everyone thinks that it’s simple. New, invasive species comes in and it has an advantage and it outcompetes, right? That’s the story, but there’s another part to that. Always, always, the local environment resists. Yes, yes, maybe badly. Maybe without a clear idea of coping with novelty. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but I am saying it’s there. Even when an invasive species takes over, even when it wins, there is a counterbalancing process it has to overcome to do that. And —” The tall man was scowling, and his discomfort made Prax want to speak faster. To say everything he had in his heart before the hammer fell. “And that counterprocess is so deep in the fabric of living systems, it can never be absent. However well the new species is designed, however overwhelming its advantages seem to be, the pushback will always be there. If one native impulse is overcome, there will be another. You understand? Conspecifics are outcompeted? Fine, the bacterial and viral microecologies will push back. Adapt to those, and it’ll be micronutrient levels and salinity and light. And the thing is, the thing is, even when the novel species does win? Even when it takes over every niche there is, that struggle alone changes what it is. Even when you wipe out or co-opt the local environment completely, you’re changed by the pushback. Even when the previous organisms are driven to extinction, they leave markers behind. What they are can never, never be completely erased.”

My question is that it seems to fall flat with the existence of the gate builders in the same fictional universe. I'm pretty sure they've remained unchanged after every single planet they've terraformed.

If fusion drives are described as being hot enough to melt space ports if you point them the right way, why don't ships use them for self defense? Point them at a missile and melt/vaporize it before it can detonate? Melt PDC fire etc?

On April 9, Carney made a speech addressing the rights of LGBTQ+ Canadians at a political event in Calgary, the first time he’d addressed LGBTQ+ issues during the election campaign.

The Yukon News reports that Dylan Robertson, a reporter with the Canadian Press, asked Carney if his government would protect access to gender-affirming care under the Canada Health Act, and also what would be done about “the backsliding” that Robertson claimed gender and sexual minorities in Canada are facing.

Carney responded to say he would defend the rights of “all Canadians,” stating: “We are all Canadians, but we all have different identities and distinctions, and one of the great strengths of this country is recognizing that people can be who they are, they can love who they love, they can live where they are, and it’s fundamentally important that the federal government is the defender of those rights, defender of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, adding: “access to health care in Canada is not a business, it is a fundamental right for all Canadians without exception.”