I don’t love this meme.

I prefer some variation of “The best time to do it was yesterday, the second best time to do it is today”

Which is to say, I don’t perceive that my late in life transition happened when it “meant” to. It happened when it could. And I’m so glad it happened at all! But if transphobia hadn’t have gripped the world so hard, it also wouldn’t have been as late as it was.

If transphobia wasn’t rampant, that would be ideal. But transphobia is rampant, and it just means each and every sport defaults to exclusion. That’s how it worked before this IOC ruling. That’s how it worked at the last Olympics, in which zero trans women were able to compete.

Idealised scenarios that assume fairness and good will don’t work. They just lead to exclusion, and worse, they make it impossible to gather more data.

And the reason for that is that everyone thinks like you. Which is to say, everyone thinks “Biology matters”, but for some reason, is never working to challenge that assumption by acknowledging that trans folks biology changes with the introduction of hormone replacement. It’s also a space with a lot of bad faith and actively misleading research, because of the aforementioned transphobia.

Excluding trans people from sport is an openly acknowledged “first step” of a where they’re using to normalise exclusion of trans folk in wider society. These are the folk generating much of this research, research that normally would be laughed out of the room, but when it’s about trans people and aligns with the “common sense” belief that trans folks have an advantage in sports, somehow the research gets taken seriously.

That’s the environment we live in. And that’s the environment that tried your approach, as a stepping stone to the outright exclusion we have now.

Welcome!

The only trans woman to ever compete in the Olympics was a power lifter. She came last.

Your intuition about trans athletes is wrong.

They ban people whose identity documents don’t match their assigned sex at birth (ie, me). All of my documents list me as female. Birth certificate, passport, ID card etc.

So if I declare that I’m trans, they deny me a visa, because my documents don’t match their transphobic guidelines. And if I don’t declare that I’m trans, and they let me in, then they can hit me for entering the country with “fraudulent” documentation if they later identity me as transgender.

Here’s a breakdown of how it works https://www.huschblackwell.com/newsandinsights/new-visa-rules-target-transgender-individuals-considerations-for-employers-and-educational-institutions

my point stands: you don’t care about nuance

The irony being here, you aren’t interested in nuance either. You’ve got your line in the sand, and it doesn’t matter how much exclusion, harm or bigotry you see, how explicitly exclusion from sports is shown to be a wedge issue to normalise exclusion of trans people from other levels of society, your opinion won’t change.

España? Pero usás un instancia Chilena.

No sé.

Yep, the real issue isn’t the fact that trans people are being excluded, the thing we need to talk about is how a trans person didn’t talk about their exclusion in a way you were comfortable with.

I’ve been on Lemmy long enough to realize that most on Lemmy don’t want to have nuance, or useful conversation. People here LIKE being mad.

There is a world wide growing movement against trans people. We have had our drivers licenses and passports taken away, we’ve been excluded from sports, we’ve had our protections against violent and sexual crime weakened and removed, we’ve had whole governments campaign on their desire to attack us.

I personally live in a country that has escaped the worst of it, but even so, do you know that I legally can’t enter the US? Not that I’d want to, but it would literally be impossible for me to provide ID that matches their expectations. And if I was let in anyway because some random person didn’t realise I was trans, I would face imprisonment if they identified that I’m trans.

Fuck nuance.

deleted by creator

Can’t we all just try to get along?

That’s a bit hard when we’re having our rights taken away. But sure, the biggest issue is that the folk defending trans people aren’t doing it in a polite enough way for your sensibilities.

I can totally buy my own beer!

Mods are great and all, but they’re mods. The default setting, despite being called Cyberpunk, doesn’t respond as a Cyberpunk setting should in response to many possible variations of V.

I stopped bothering with mods a long time ago, because I’ve found they’re often too frustrating for me to be worth it. They break with updates, they don’t play nice with each other, they often clash with the core storyline in unexpected ways, and they can annoying to install, and all of this has become more true since I moved to linux.

I think I’d love something like that first mod you mentioned if it were part of the base game, both because it sounds more fun and because it’s truer to the genre the game is named after, but it’s not enough to get me to install it and do another run through.

You’re not wrong, but that’s kind of a plot hole intrinsic to virtually all video games with combat.

Not if they’re turn based :P

That causes different issues.

It’s cyberpunk. You’re meant to have aim assist, hit confirmation, damage estimators etc. You’re cybered, you’re half machine, and losing your humanity to the machine to get those advantages is a core part of the setting aesthetic. Or alternatively, you don’t get cyber, and you don’t lose yourself to the machine, but then you struggle to survive when dealing with those who have. You see this play out in extremes in the cyberpsycho story arcs.

A cybered up merc is meant to be a small shark in an ocean of piranhas. An ocean where there are larger sharks, but also killer whales. A cybered up merc is meant to be a threat to most people on the street. But a gang of partly and non cybered folk should be a threat to the merc too. Maybe a merc could get lucky and tear up a gang by themself, but it would leave a power vacuum, and disturb a lot of people who had deals with that gang. It would be a story in and of itself. And any merc that kept killing wiping out entire gangs would eventually take a wrong step, and end up dead, or if they were good enough to not get killed by the gangs, they’d find themselves with a bullet in the back of the head, being put down by the corps who rely on the status quo in the streets to make their money.

The point being, the cyberpunk setting itself is not designed to be home to mass slice and dice combat. The slicers and dicers are the people who have lost themselves to the machine completely, the psychos that need to be put down.

tl;dr - Changing the difficulty wouldn’t resolve my main issue with the game

What I struggle with with the game is that it’s meant to be punk. It’s easy to die. A dude with a gun can kill no matter who you are.

Instead, you’re an invincible death/hacking machine. You can mow through mooks in a way that should completely and utterly reshape the whole criminal underworld, but instead, is treated as if it’s just any other day.

The power levels are wrong for the aesthetics of the setting

You’ll need to talk to @Cyb3rSh0nker@lemmy.blahaj.zone. I’ve added them as a mod, so it’s up to them as the active mod!

I’m a vegan. When i see people eating beef, I don’t claim “either you like hurting cows, or you’ve been duped by people who hate animals”.

I’m not a vegan or even a vegetarian, but I wouldn’t argue with you if you made that claim, because the only reason we as a society eat as much meat as we do, is because it’s normalised at every level for economic reasons.

If I can manage that, you can manage to not argue with trans people trying to deal with the active and ongoing exclusion they face.

For what it’s worth, I don’t give a shit about “fairness” in sports.

Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion, arguing with people trying to defend a highly marginalised section of the community?

If you “don’t care”, then dropping it so as to not be part of the active exclusion of trans people would be the appropriate move.

I wasn’t talking about attraction as such. Like, I won’t date people who don’t identify with queerness in some way. I’m not “queersexual” but rather, it’s a personal preference and understanding of my own needs that influences who I date above and beyond who I’m attracted to. My last boyfriend for example, I was attracted to him romantically and sexually, but he wasn’t queer, and I felt like my queerness was invisible when I was with him. And so after we broke up, I decided that I won’t enter another relationship like that.

And similarly, there are people who are technically bisexual, but who won’t date men, despite having attraction, even romantic attraction to them.

It doesn’t matter to me what words other people to describe themselves

That’s the important part!

What it definitely doesn’t include by definition of the word is people who are totally outside of the binary spectrum.

It does though.

This is a quote from the bisexual manifesto, back from 1990

Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have “two” sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross all sexual orientations. Nothing should be assumed about anyone’s sexuality, including your own.

I completely understand that you may be uncomfortable with the term yourself, and I’m not suggesting that you need to use it. But the term was inclusive of non binary people from before many people using the internet today were even born. You can’t assume that someone using the term is exclusive of non binary folk.

I can genuinely say that I’ve never met a bisexual person who is explicitly only interested in men and women. I mean, I’ve ran across them online, but the people that I’ve actually met and spoken to in person? Not a single one has used the label in an exclusionary way.

And like any term with problematic, out of date origins, there is power in reclaiming it.

All of which is to say, you can’t tell people that an identity they’ve been using in an inclusive way for literally decades is actually exclusive just because you personally aren’t comfortable with it.

For what it’s worth, I feel similar about the term transsexual. It’s a term that in modern usage, has a good chance of meaning that the person labelling themselves that way is a transmedicalist, with exclusionary beliefs about who is and isn’t transgender. I don’t label myself transsexual because of that discomfort with the word. But I also know people who came out as trans decades before I did, who use the label because that was the language at the time they came out. They’re not automatically transmeds themselves, and I don’t get to tell them that they need to redefine their identity for my comfort.