You can't seriously think that some bullies insulting you by calling you gay, whilst clearly and evidently and outwardly just using is a generic insult, rather than actually meaning it, is even in the same universe as a trans person being forced to express the wrong gender identity for several decades.
Devial
joined 1 week ago
The high security vaults are yeah, but I still use him for the vaults ahead of the main safe room, those can be knocked
The premise of this post of an openly gay person talking to their straight friend/acquaintance. Pretty sure it's fairly safe to assume that this isn't set in Uganda or Saudi Arabia. And even in the deepest fucking south of the USA, no straight person is getting hate crimed because one time their gay friend called them gay as a stupid bit.
Pretending this is relevant to the discussion is disengenous.
I think the primary distinction is that a weapon in a criminal context is typically something that is used to threaten/coerce someone, or to enable you to cause (more/more severe) physical harm/incapacitation in a physical altercation.
Date rape drugs aren't used to threaten/coerce people, and whilst they can cause harm, it is generally not the intended goal when someone uses them. And intent/willingness to use a weapon to physically harm someone, in my opinion, is a relevant distinction to relatively """peacefully""" knocking someone out. Of course committing date rape is still an utterly horrific thing, and people who do it should be charged and held accountable to the fullest extent of justice, but it is still different from threatening someone with a weapon and forcing yourself on them. (Also, whilst I have no actual data on this, it seems logical to me that a conscious victim is far more likely to receive (more serious) injuries as they struggle, vs. an unconscious one)
So whilst I agree that classifying date rape drugs as weapons is a good move, there definitely are relevant distinctions as to why drugs are typically not considered weapons.
"They're extradonarily narrow" whilst literally talking about an apple patent that covers ANY type of digital display device whatsoever that has rounded corners.
That's not even close to "extremely narrow" in scope.
Extremely narrow in scope would be defining a certain radius of curvature (within a small +/- range), in combination with an aspect ratio (again, with a small +/- margin) and for a specific class of screen.
That would be an adequately and acceptably narrow design patent.
And on top, there needs to be a limitation on design patents (any patents, frankly) that makes them unenforceable if the holder of the patent hasn't had a product matching the patent on the marker for several years, and isn't currently and actively working on R&D to develop such a product. (With some common sense clauses to prevent abuse, such as ordering one employee to spend 5 minutes a month working on a concept so that you're technically perpetually engaged in R&D, or listing a depreciated product for an absurdly high price that no one will ever pay, so you can say technically it's still on the market without needing to actually still manufacturer/support it).
Though I'd be happy to hear counter arguments for why this would be a bad idea.
I'd love for you to explain to me where that follows from the standards I've laid out.
I explicitly said that a straight person who is secure and comfortable in their sexuality will not mind. Being secure and comfortable in your gender identity ain't exactly something trans people are known for, so only someone who knows fuck all about trans people could possibly think this is remotely comparable.
Straight people, with very few, if any, exceptions, didn't grow up being told they're gay. Being forced by society to express themselves as gay, even though it made them feel awful. They didn't spend potentially decades feeling unwelcome in their own skin. They don't spend hours upon hours worrying that society won't accept than as "a real straight". They don't spend days worrying about the hate crime, discrimination and legal persecution they are susceptible to if they don't look straight enough. Triggering that level of trauma isn't the same as making someone slightly uncomfortable because they found out they unknowingly didn't express their outward sexuality as strongly as they felt. It isn't remotely, on any level, comparable, and that is an objective truth.
I am also notably not defending calling straight people gay. I'm just pointing out that deliberately misgendering a trans person is on a completely different plane of shitty behaviours. Not every shitty behaviour is automatically equally shitty.