I ll start : I have been following a pretty known tech/Linux journalist, and always found he is a fun dude to listen to, with interesting tech takes

The fact that he is also very openly “american conservative” (aka, religious & weapon nut, anti abortion, etc) annoys me, but i keep those things separate. And he does keep it separate too (politics channel vs tech channel), which is a great decision.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    I do think it would be helpful to have more clarity on the definitions of terms for different states of transitioning/non-transitioning but unfortunately that’s outweighed by the privacy concerns and the infighting and effort it would cause

    • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why? What language are we lacking that would help if added, that wouldn’t just lead to more gatekeeping?

      We already have the language to talk about various elements of social and medical transition.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s less about having the language and more about agreeing on the specifics of what language we do have. That’s not gatekeeping, just categorization. Mildly useful but people calling it “gatekeeping” is exactly why it wouldn’t be helpful to try to define it in practice (don’t mean to attack you, just taking an example).