Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   timberwraith (timberwraith@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 14-Mar-2026 08:59:24 JST timberwraith

   I'm a leftist but not a proud leftist, mostly because I've seen the left do so much that I'm not proud of.

   In fact, it pissed me off. Repeatedly.

2. Embed this notice
   TechnoTenshi :verified_trans: :Fire_Lesbian: (technotenshi@infosec.exchange)'s status on Monday, 01-Sep-2025 14:39:03 JST TechnoTenshi :verified_trans: :Fire_Lesbian:

   I want to share something I'm really proud of.

   In late July, I came across a 2016 article from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. It discussed intersex women, including those with XY chromosomes, but the language was outdated, reductionist, and stigmatizing. It called them "genetically men," leaned on biological determinism, and framed their lives through a medical lens that undermined their dignity.

   I couldn't let that stand, so I wrote to them. I explained why the language was harmful, pointed to current science and bioethics, and asked them to take responsibility.

   To their credit, they listened. They replied quickly, acknowledged my concerns, and began reviewing the article. A couple of weeks later they sent me a revised draft. They had already removed the misgendering, replaced pathologizing phrases, and shifted the framing away from chromosomes as destiny. I suggested a few more adjustments to make the language even more accurate and affirming.

   At the end of August, they published the updated article in English and Danish. The harmful wording is largely gone. The framing now centers human diversity, patient-centered care, and informed consent.

   It may not sound dramatic, but these changes matter. Words shape how people see themselves, how they are treated by doctors, and how society understands trans and intersex lives. Correcting language in a piece like this helps chip away at stigma that has caused harm for decades.

   Here's what this looked like in practice for me: I was assertive. I named where I disagreed. I brought factual evidence. I kept the exchange in good faith. I stayed open to change and supported it when it happened.

   It is one article, one institution, one moment. Little by little, contribution by contribution, we are changing things. I'm proud that I stood up and made a difference here, and I'll keep doing what I can to push for a world where our communities are seen, respected, and affirmed. 💜

   Link to the revised article: https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-born-with-a-hidden-variation-in-sex-development/

   #Intersex #Trans #LanguageMatters #PatientCenteredCare

3. Embed this notice
   daniel:// stenberg:// (bagder@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 07-Aug-2025 00:44:11 JST daniel:// stenberg://

   Another #curl security report that took some serious mind wrestling and debugging to get to the bottom of.

   In the end I deem it not a security vulnerability but you can see how this is not an easy call.

   https://hackerone.com/reports/3283232

4. Embed this notice
   13 barn owls in a trenchcoat (hauntedowlbear@eldritch.cafe)'s status on Monday, 24-Feb-2025 05:16:14 JST 13 barn owls in a trenchcoat

   in reply to

   @duke_of_germany

   They describe themselves as Norse folk, which they're pretty faithful exponents of.

   In broader terms, I'd put them under the neofolk umbrella, which I don't blame them for rejecting, as it's a historically problematic genre which had a Nazi problem early on (like some parts of early black metal and dungeon synth), although the overwhelming direction of the genre now feels more hospitable to anti-fascists than the opposite (as one would hope), thanks to the work of organisations like A Blaze Ansuz (https://antifascistneofolk.com/).

5. Embed this notice
   🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 07-Nov-2024 02:11:02 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   in reply to

   @ech

   Yes the "there were always 2 parties" is the illusion I spoke of.

   In a FPTP system if the underlying real support for parties is red: 40% blue: 39% lib: 21% then the vote will come out as something like red 51%, blue 49%. However in the next election if the real preference shifts than the vote will immediately and drastically change as well to reflect the new party.

   In other words, while the votes themselves will give the illusion of a two party system by converting true support to a 2-party vote outcome not reflecting true support. The real underlying support will not reflect a 2-party system and there will be **no** preference for the same 2 parties to win from one election to the next.

   We see this with the historic changes in parties, in every election where a new third party becomes dominate within a single election a previously near 50% party shoots completely down to less than 2% and the third party immediately shoots up to near 50%. In other words the numbers move rapidly and shifts in primary parties easily change.

   So again this doesnt reflect a 2-party system, just an illusion that reinforces the myth and thus is self fullfilling.

   @cobratbq