not everyone is able to follow the same news sources and some people who only get infomation on social media are subject to waves of propaganda news articles.

I very much understand that. However, this conversation is a classic example of the fact that even being told those statistics and having the context made clear, doesn’t actually change anything.

You may not have a desire to engage with those people and thats totally understandable, but there should be some people who are allies, who are able to engage in those types of conversations

There are. Lots of them! It’s why I am defensive with you, because despite the existence of folk like that, you don’t see them, and instead categorise trans people as largely being “all or nothing”. You are part of the group you were just talking about. The group that isn’t exposed to the right content, and instead, only knows what they see in an actively transphobic media and social media environment.

And as I said earlier, you won’t shift your opinion, you won’t ease off and stop fighting me, to become one of those people that helps trans folk. Instead, you’ll fight me, for daring to take issue with your framing of the situation, whilst blaming me for it at the same time.

Right now we are literally having everyone’s rights rolled back because thats how fascists like Trump act when you stand up to them

That’s our common ground right there. Yet instead of talking about that, you’re suggesting that actually, giving in and being ok with some of those rollbacks might be ok, as long as its trans people!

If you want allyship against facism, focus on the facism, rather than demanding that your allies capitulate to it

there is no suggestion being made here

Yes there is. I asked you what you think compromise looks like in real world terms

You replied with this

So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.

That is quite explicitly a suggestion. Or rather, two suggestions.

In this suggestion, you use the word “women” as if it doesn’t apply to trans women. ie, you say “women’s safety” when you clearly means cis women’s safety. Dangerous, because it normalises the attack on trans women that they aren’t women. And dangerous because it implies that trans women are a risk to cis women, when in fact, trans women are more at risk of sexual assault and violence than cis women are! There is danger here, but it’s not coming from the trans women, and framing it as if it is, and as if that is something that should be compromised on is dangerous to trans people.

There is no compromise, when that compromise involves having our safety ignored, and our rights rolled back. That’s not compromise.

Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you

You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.

I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback

Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.

Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people

“I think people should have respect” isn’t something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.

Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women’s safety, as if trans women aren’t part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.

And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.

The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don’t just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.

I’m also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven’t become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.

That’s why

Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.

I’m asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that’s what really matters.

Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.

That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…

Is it federated/does it have social elements?

CachyOS, because I wanted something arch based due to the archi wiki and rolling releases.

My media boxes run Ubuntu, but that will change when they get rebuilt/replaced at some point, most likely to Debian

There will not be any corrective steps anytime soon, because the UK government, who would need to implement those steps, is actively disinclined to make them, because even though it’s less transphobic than the previous government, it is still doing transphobia for political reasons.

This is a setback for immediate protections, but my view is that this isn’t necessarily bad in the long term, so long as corrective steps are taken to address the root issue.

There will be no corrective steps.

it should spur on actually solving the issues

It won’t, because it was brought about to achieve the exact opposite

Why would I care what your uninformed opinion on my response to oppression is?

Judges hear the case that’s brought, not the agenda of the groups that bring things.

Uh huh.

If that were true, this wouldn’t be an overturning of a previous ruling on appeal. If this were not influenced by political bias, you wouldn’t get different results in different courts. Judges wouldn’t be “conservative” or “progressive”. Judges wouldn’t nearly all be straight, elderly and white.

They are though, because the appointment process is shaped by political perspectives, because the acceptable rulings are shaped by political perspectives and the cases that get seen and funded are shaped by political perspectives.

The fact that no trans people were called during the trial is shaped by politics.

The judges chose to read and rule that sex is “biological” and binary, despite the legislation making no mention of it being biological, and despite the biological understanding of sex being that is very much not binary… All of that, you guessed it, shaped by politics…

That’s really all I have to say about that part.

Good for you. Trans people don’t have that choice.

If this were protecting trans people, it wouldn’t have been brought to court by a transphobic group, or the win celebrated by them.

This actively excludes trans folk from vital protections and exposes them to environments that increase their risk of violence.

There’s no context that makes this anything other than incredibly damaging to trans folk

That appears to be hardware, not a distro

If you see “permanently deleted” in your post history, you know that it was removed because the person deleted their account.

Other than that, there isn’t and can’t really be any way of tracking that removal, without keeping data that the account owner has requested be deleted. Some clients cache removed content and continue to display it after its removed from the instance, but that only works if the client is explicitly coded to do so, and if the client happened to get a copy of the content before it was removed.

To verify this, one needs to know the poster’s username in advance, but this info is not visible from the deleted post.

Your comments to their removed post will still show in your history, and the title of the post will be “permanently deleted”. If you see that, you know that the user deleted their account. Of note, admins and mods of communities where the content was posted will still be able to view the post stub, to see the other replies to the post, but even they can’t see the initial content.

Anything else will have a trail attached to the users ID. The API makes a difference between a user deleting their own post/comment (not account) and a mod doing the same. Many lemmy clients display them differently, though some display them the same, and others just hide as if it never existed in the first place. So in many clients, you can see that a user deleted their own post by the icon the client uses. You won’t get any more information than that, because there is no requirement for a reason to be entered when removing your own content.

If a mod or admin removes it, it will show as being removed by mod action, and will generate a mod log.

There is also a purge option that will let a moderator completely purge a user, post or comment from their instance. This is used for accounts that post NSFL content. A purge won’t leave a mod log trail, but purging doesn’t federate. which means that the content will still be visible on remote instances (and the user can still continue to post if they are based on a remote instance). To remove remote content, the admin needs to issue a ban and content removal before the purge, and the ban will leave a mod log entry. This is only an option if the user was a local user, or for content they posted to a locally hosted community.

In theory, an admin could also remove content directly from the database, but that is basically the same as the purge process. It doesn’t federate, so content remains visible on other instances, unless the admin issued a ban before getting in to the database, and then the ban will show in the log.

I am honestly confused.

The existing modlog already includes user bans.

Your comments were never removed, so they don’t appear in a modlog.

You can’t find the parent posts your comments were made on, because they are permanently deleted due to the poster deleting their account. These don’t appear in the modlog, because they were removed by the user, not a mod. There was no reason to attach, because the reason is that the user deleted their account.

If the user had a post deleted by a mod before they then deleted their own account, it won’t appear in the modlog, because both the user and the post in question have been removed from the system. If it was in the modlog, all you would be able to see is that an unknown user had some unknown content removed, or than an unknown user was banned, which is less than useful.

If what you’re asking about isn’t covered by that, then I genuinely don’t understand the scenario you’re trying to clarify

Two separate things.

User bans already appear in the modlogs.

Self deleted accounts don’t appear in anything, because they are truly erased.

That image doesn’t show “permanently deleted”. Neither the comment in the screenshot nor the post the comment was attached to have been deleted. That appears to be a screenshot of a discussion about this issue, rather than an occurrence of it.

That’s what I’m saying. The post is gone because the user deleted their account. Everything about that account is gone. I believe it works that way due to European laws on the right to be forgotten.

There is no modlog, because there were no mod actions.