ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝

A geologist and archaeologist by training, a nerd by inclination - books, films, fossils, comics, rocks, games, folklore, and, generally, the rum and uncanny… Let’s have it!

Elsewhere:

  • Yrtree.me - it’s still early days for me in the Fediverse, so bear with me
  • 616 Posts
  • 2.22K Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年6月11日

help-circle
  • To what extent? Like what about an AI generated humour/satire image in a comment section? I have a funny one of Vladimir Putin sitting on a naughty step

    That’s a no for that. It’s ultimately based on someone else’s stolen work.

    We would, I suspect, allow AI imagery in discussion about AI and what it us capable of but the days of posting it to laugh at the shitty results seems long gone. In recent examples, I couldn’t tell by eye but I ran it through an AI checker which was pretty definitive.

    Anyway, I changed casualuk icon as it was an old 2023 AI generated image previously. I think we should work towards revamping other communities

    Yeah, there’s the odd community avatar we need to swap and we definitely need to give some of the communities a bit of a revamp as they were bodged together over a year ago, often in haste.









  • Following the ruling, J.K. Rowling, the world’s richest author and perhaps its most prominent transphobe, tweeted a photo of herself enjoying a cigar and a bourbon on her $15 million superyacht, toasting what she called “TERF VE Day,” in reference to the acronym “trans-exclusionary radical feminism” and the surrender of German military operations that heralded “Victory in Europe” 80 years ago. “I love it when a plan comes together,” Rowling added.

    She’s become a Bond villain.

    Astonishingly, the ruling specifies that what it calls “women living in the male gender”—i.e., trans men, and cis women whose appearance is deemed masculine—“could also be excluded” alongside cis men, from women’s spaces. “Not being allowed into the mens by rule does not mean you have the right to go into the ladies,” clarified the leading anti-trans campaigner Maya Forstater; “That may seem unfair, but these are life choices people make. If you make extreme efforts to look like a man don’t be surprised if you are denied entrance to ladies.” Forstater’s comments underscore the ultimate goal of TERFs and other transphobes: to expunge trans people from public life.

    The mask slips there. Even amongst TERFs that has to be a minority opinion (right? Right?) as everyone has the right to go to the toilet, but it does demonstrate that some don’t see this ruling as an end point but just a foot in the door. One of my arguments against the ruling (or the misinterpretation of it) was that trans men will be forced into women’s toilets, changing rooms, etc and this would underline the absurdity of all of this and lead to push back against it, but it seems like some TERFs are already planning for that eventuality.

    And, again, who do they expect to police this? I spoke to the landlord of my local and he is pretty clear that everyone should use the toilet that best corresponds to the gender you look like, not necessarily from some high moral ground but because it causes the least fuss and bother.




  • My previous house was a Victorian semi that had cavity walls. I phoned up about a green grant to get it done (as people two doors down had) and they wouldn’t believe me until they checked Google Earth. Had it surveyed and it would have needed a lot of preparation work to get into a condition that it could have been insulated. Ended moving and I am unsure what the new owners have done on that front - not flash enough to make their Instagram account about renovating the house which I have been advised not to read as they are horrible people with bad taste. Although I get the gist as it often gets commented on at parties, especially as a friend’s brother-in-law did the bathrooms.











  • FWS, which is partly funded by the writer JK Rowling

    “Millionaire spends cash to make people’s lives worse”

    They argue that a very clear definition by the court on what a woman is would also help clear up an ambiguity about who qualifies to use women’s services.They argue that a very clear definition by the court on what a woman is would also help clear up an ambiguity about who qualifies to use women’s services.

    There doesn’t seem any ambiguity: Do they have a GRC? It’s either either yes or no. Trying to define a woman is difficult and could lead to a lot more ambiguity.

    They say people who self-identify as trans but do not have a gender recognition certificate are being allowed to use women-only services and spaces.

    Laws are broken all the time, it’s not an argument to change the laws.