Never got comfy, even now it varies how the pronouns strike me. Sometimes it makes me feel so happy, other times it draws attention to gender in a moment when I wasn’t expecting and that can feel like a cold bucket being thrown on me.
It seems like a lot of people are just not reading the article or the context of the quote:
Now, this is not Holland saying that Chalotra is ugly, or that they cast someone ugly to play the role of the most beautiful woman in the world. … Rather, Holland is saying that she is challenging the “standard of beauty” by casting a woman with slightly darker skin.
I do understand that traditional Western fantasy is predominantly white, but I disagree fundamentally with the notion that the “standard of beauty” for most people is being white. I don’t think anyone in the entire world outside of a tiny, tiny sliver of absolute racist scumbags would look at Anya Chalotra and think anything other than “This woman is jaw-droppingly gorgeous.” Casting Chalotra may challenge our perceptions of fantasy as white (a complicated discussion on its own) but it does nothing to challenge any standard of beauty.
Emphasis is mine.
You didn’t fact-check how many trans people there are in the U.S.1
It looks to be between 0.5% and 1.6% of the total U.S. population (2 - 6 in 400).
References:
Semi-related, the number of intersex people (in the literature they talk about people with “disorders of sexual development”) have also been estimated to be around 1% of the population (4 in 400), source:
https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
1 yes, the U.S. isn’t mentioned in the OP, but your sources are looking at U.S. demographics and so I will continue with the U.S.-centrism already present.
Some Thoughts (oh boy):
There is a weird logic to pointing out how few trans people there are actually are in the OP. Even if there were many more trans people, (like if there really were 1 in 5 trans people as is commonly mis-perceived), would that make the GOP’s campaign of fear-mongering and animus any more justified? I don’t think this is what Shon (@gayblackvet
) was going for, but it almost seems like a consequence of how the message was written.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but does it seem like way it is written implies that the problem is not that the trans panic is unjustified in its fear of trans people, but that it is merely blown out of proportion? Maybe the angle was that even if we assume trans people are a problem, it’s still so few people it’s not worth all this panic and legislation (there are >500 anti-trans bills in the U.S. right now, over 40 of them have already passed).
Rhetorically this perspective-taking might be effective in appealing to mildly transphobic centrists or moderate conservatives who are not entirely comfortable with trans people but who might not want to be perceived as transphobic and don’t want to be associated with the rabid and vocal transphobia of the GOP.
That wedge between a more moderate closeted transphobe and a more openly transphobic right-wing one is politically useful, so I am not necessarily complaining, but there is a concern here about whether tackling transphobia is really the goal here, and if so how we should best go about that.
they debunked the myth that caffeine causes pancreatic cancer:
https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2015235
EDIT: Caffeine might make you more likely to have issues with your heart, and isn’t good for your blood pressure.
If you would like to traumatize yourself more, here’s a video about another dangerous water slide:
There are more carbs than represented in that radar chart.