A nice long lens, and patience!

Mostly birds :)

But landscapes and candids get some time from me as well. Lately, I've been trying drone photography, but I'm still learning the ropes there!

Honestly, either. Better photography opportunities in a forest (more birds), but a beach let's me bring out the drone and soak up some heat

Stop trying to tell me my own experience. You don't experience gender. Stop trying to speak for people who do.

Without this interaction with this external categorization: would you have been able to find anything was "different"?

Yes.

The words I use to describe it would be different. If I grew up on an island of men, I'd have been completely lost trying to understand it, and may never have found the words, but I would still have felt it, because I was already feeling it before I had the words.

Trans people are real. Our experience of gender is real. Those experiences don't align with yours, but that doesn't stop them being real. Trans people exist in one form or another, across every civilisation, and have done so through the length of recorded history.

You won't find a "gotcha". You won't make other folks experience match yours, just because you don't understand theirs.

I don't know, I would not say that I knew automatically when I was born what's the difference between "man" and "woman".

Nor did I. For me, it came around the same time I started to understand gender and sex. The more I understood it, the more I knew it was wrong.

To me, "man" and "woman" can't be labels that go beyond the social/behavioral because I don't know what it feels like to be a man anymore than what I know it feels like to be a woman..

For me, it was initially tied in the physical. I knew my body should have been different. I wished it was different. I dreamed, prayed, hoped and fantasized that it would be different. It was an awareness that I was "like them" with girls and "not like them" with boys. I knew it was wrong when I was grouped with boys.

That's what it felt like. Not an understanding of others peoples experiences, but an understanding of how my own sense of self was at odds with both my body, and the assumptions that my body created in people.

For someone who doesn't feel gender, then of course you aren't going to understand the experience of folk who do, anymore than I can understand what it's like to not feel it. All I can is that analogies about colour aren't particularly apt here, because it doesn't work like that. My gender doesn't exist because of shared consensus (although it is shaped by that consensus). My gender doesn't exist because I was able to understand other peoples experiences. My gender is just something I've always felt, and that I've tried to make sense of over the years. I describe it now in clear, defined terms, but when I was younger, it didn't work like that. I knew my body was wrong, but the social stuff, the gender stuff? Finding the words for that would take decades. But even as I said, I was finding the words to describe an experience that was always there.

I don't know if you're familiar with the term, but what you're describing is similar to the experience that many agender folk describe.

Suffice to say, I experience gender very differently to you. I've "felt" my gender since before I hit puberty. Before I had the words to understand it, before I knew what femininity or masculinity even were, before I experienced my sexuality...

btw I am not downvoting you

My instance doesn't have downvotes, so it makes no difference to me. They're disabled precisely because they get

My argument is that the discussion around the nature of sex is irrelevant to promoting transphobia. The far right (English-language or otherwise) will find something else to latch on to.

Yes and no. I transitioned 8 years ago. Before the current wave of transphobia had settled on us for politcal gain. And transphobes were around then. The same arguments were around then. However, the only people who used those arguments and the only time those discussions came up, was when transphobes were talking about trans folk. What wasn't happening then, was regular folk, unconnected to the trans and gender diverse community, weighing on on what their opinions on sex and gender were. Mostly, folk didn't even distinguish between sex and gender.

What has changed since then, is the politics. And yeah, the politicians didn't come up with these arguments out of thing air. They didn't create the transphobia. But what they did was popularise and normalise it, and that is the reason that a Ukranian is arguing with an Australian, about the actions of a transphobic American.

The fact that you (and I) are having this conversation, or that you're even aware of the topic enough to have strong opinions on it, is absolutely shaped by the transphobic political environment around the world.

Forget Ukraine, what about say Pakistan or India or Uzbekistan?

That's the point I was making! You're talking about sex using absolutes. I'm saying there are no absolutes. Sex has multiple definitions, some are cultural, some are physical, some are genetic, some are medical, some are legal. And they all overlap, and they often contradict each other. There is no clear cut definition of sex that can apply a consistent standard. The cultural contexts you highlight are actively a part of the reason that is so!

You are welcome to disagree with me and say I am wrong in my understanding of the binary nature of sex. It is what is. I am just trying to show you that my worldview has a level of nuance and it's not a mere matter of wanting "neat solutions" while ignoring the weaponization of this discussion by the English-speaking far right.

To be honest, your reasons don't matter. What matters is that you are parroting the arguments actively used by the transphobic folk, in a time when trans folk are facing ever growing abuse. The fact that you think you have good reasons for holding those opinions doesn't change the fact that in this environment, choosing to share those opinions, especially in the context of arguing with folk actively pushing back against transphobia, isn't harmless.

What makes me a woman is that I'm a woman. It really is that simple and has nothing to do with stereotypes. Stereotypes influence the way we express ourselves and our identities, they influence our behaviours, and the language we use. But they don't determine who we are.

I would be trans on a desert island. I would be trans if I was raised on an island of men and had never seen a woman. The language I use to talk about my identity would obviously be different, and even the way I understand it would be different, but underneath it all, I'd still be trans, even if it manifested differently.

And that's what I'm getting at. Sure, I'll argue that the fact I use the word "woman" is based on the social context in which I was raised, because gender is at least partly socially defined. But the identity that I'm describing with that label, that exists at a level below social norms, and below stereotypes, even whilst being influenced by them.

I'm a trans woman. Before I transitioned, I wasn't feminine. I never experimented with family members makeup or borrowed their clothing. Even now, 8 years after coming out and transitioning, I'm still not feminine. No one looked at me after I came out and said "Oh, it all makes sense now". I don't wear makeup, I don't have my ears pierced, I'm loud, argumentative and competitive. I ride an illegally overpowered fat tyred monster bike, and I'm happiest in a tshirt and jeans.

Yet I'm still very much a woman and very much trans.

Of course, many trans folk do embrace gender stereotypes, but you need to understand, that is "after the fact". For some folk, it's simply a matter of protection and ensuring that their gender doesn't get denied them by society. For others, it's a source of joy, being able to embrace something that they were not able to explore earlier in their lives. And for others, it is inherently tied to how they experience their gender.

But for all of us, it is not our gender, even if it is strongly connected.

Yeah, no, that's not how being trans works.

I don't believe that gender relates to stereotypes.

I'm a trans woman. I don't "get" femininity, and to me, when I perform it, it feels like a performance. It has zero to do with my understanding of my own gender.

I'm still very much trans.

We are not discussing the strategies used by the far right to demonize trans folk (or anyone else). We are discussing something completely different that has no bearing on the strategies used by the far right.

Yes we are. The only reason these discussions come up in the first place is because of that.

You thinking that this has nothing to do with the far right doesn't make it so. Normalising the idea that sex is black and white, and conversations about that only occur in a wide spread way because there is political reward in presenting things that way. 10 years ago you weren't having these discussions. Today, you are, because the politics of transphobia has made it happen.

You are the one who claimed that I was diverting in to irrelevancy. I bring up the political context, because it's not irrelevant.

This whole conversation, the thread you are talking in, exists, because a transphobe was using the same talking points you are arguing for, to normalise transphobia. You doing it, also normalises transphobia, whether that is your intent or not.

You want a sex binary to exist. It doesn't, unless you smooth away the edges and ignore some of the data and the lived realities of people. Evolutionary biologists don't share your perspective. Geneticists don't share your perspective. This whole conversation exists for political reasons, designed to push exclusion. In a topic about a person using these exact talking points to push for exclusion, you have arrived, repeated the talking points, and then tried to argue that actually, it's ok, because your perspective is correct, so long as we ignore some of the details.

Which is exactly what the next transphobe will do too.

Even if you don't agree with me, and to you, this is all about the purity of ideas, your choice of getting involved in this discussion, in this context, isn't removed from reality. It's not detached. It's actively empowering the exclusionary voices by talking over and fighting with the people pushing back against that exclusion. That's a choice you made that has nothing to do with the truth of your idea

Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.

Of course they're relevant. Sex being immutable, easy to define and binary is at the core of the tactics that transphobes use to exclude and legislate against trans folk.

So the fact that it's not easy to define, has multiple definitions in different contexts, and has no single definition that works in all instances is very relevant.

You talked about "genetic bio-chemical reproduction" earlier. There are women who have literally given birth, who have XY chromosomes. Similarly, there are XX men with SRY genes. Using your "genetic sex is the truth" approach, they are both folks with a different genetic sex to their physical and legal sex. A transphobe would catch those people and throw them under the bus too whilst they target trans people.

The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework

Yep. I'll agree with that. But the framework it is built on is not the end result. There is no meaning or intent behind the framework. There is nothing about it that is more "real".

The real part isn't the genetic plan that was used to create someone. The real part is the body they're actually walking around in.

To you, this is all an interesting argument. You're arguing about things in black and white, because none of it actually matters to you. So you can argue for how you think things should work.

The very same arguments you are using are being weaponised and turned against gender diverse folk and intersex folk. Your re-use of them, arguing about some sort of ideal that exists only in your head isn't harmless. The fact that sex is nuanced, that gender is nuanced, that they both have multiple, contradicting definitions, and neither have a single definition that is more true than the others is incredibly important, because the only reason to ignore that is either to hurt people, or because you're so far removed from the reality of what's happening, that you place a higher priority on things being neat and tidy than on the people that false belief hurts.

I admitted there are edge cases.

Then it's not binary.

When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.

Absolutely. For day to day life, "there are two outcomes" is safe way to describe coin flips. But given that a coin landing on its side can happen, it's not a binary system. It only becomes binary when we ignore the edge cases. Just like sex...

And that's before we get to the point that there isn't even a single definition of sex that accounts for all scenarios. People can change their legal sex, people can change their morphological sex, "genetic sex" isn't foolproof, as it doesn't always correlate with morphological sexual characteristics, or even gamete production.

Calling sex binary is either a generalisation, or something you want to be true. At no point is it reality of the situation though...

It is a binary with some edge cases

So in other words, not a binary? What you're describing is more accurately described as a bimodal distribution.

Broadly speaking, you can regain what you've lost in the previous 7 years or so. It takes years though. And it's not guaranteed. Most people regain some hair on HRT, but like all things genetic, it's a dice roll

Her comment was meant as black and white. To use your analogy, she would be arguing that 6 wheeled cars don't exist, and insisting that all vehicles have two or four wheels, and that's how we distinguish them

Games with cyber psychosis tend not to have androids, as they blunt the impact of exploring the stories of people who replace more and more of themselves with cyberware and lose their humanity as they do it.

So the androids that have existed in the various version of cyberpunk over the years have all been some variant of replacing your body with chrome, whilst leaving at least some part of your original brain behind to drive it.

So, my typical process looks like this

• Exposure I normally leave as is, preferring to use other modules to fix exposure issues. There are exceptions, but generally, I leave this module alone on its "scene referred" default
• I apply haze removal, chromatic aberration, lens correction, denoise (profiled) and raw chromatic aberration without modification, though I will sometimes leave out haze removal if the image is high contrast straight out of the camera
• Tone equalizer, I tend to set to "contrast tone curve: soft", but again, this one will get adjusted as needed.
• Local contrast. I always use this, mostly on "clarity" , but I will use HDR tone mapping if it's a backlit subject or the like
• Sharpen. I rarely use it, as most of my photos are done with pro glass these days, but if I've used a tele converter or the like, I'll sometimes use this modeule
• Colour Balance RGB. This is where I do most of my work. Up until now, I've use presets, but here, I use either "standard" or "vivid" as my starting point, before tinkering. For all of my adjustments here, I use the "RGB parade" panel (rather than a histogram) to watch the exposure and colour balance. I typically start on the 4 way tab, and adjust "power" and "shadows lift". Then on the master tab, I'll adjust the perceptual brilliance grading. This is where I correct any remaining exposure issues, and to some extent, contrast issues. Then, I'll play with vibrance and contrast a little, just to tweak the final result.
• If I am really struggling with a poorly lit subject, or a contrasty background with a non contrasty subject, I'll create a second (and sometimes even a third) Colour Balance RGB module, and use "drawn and parametric masks" to selectively adjust the areas I need. The killer secret to make this work is after you've selected your area, increase the feathering to smooth it out and blur it, and then increase the mask contrast, to make it respect borders. I find that tweaking these is best done with the mask preview turned off.
• Finally, if I'm not happy with the temperature/colour cast, I'll use the "colour correction" module. This one is display referred rather than scene referred, so I always leave it until last. There are other options for adjusting this, but I find the ease of moving the offset point around the colour map too efficient to pass up. I can quickly move through a lot of options and find the value that looks best.

I think I'm the only darktable user to not use filmic rgb :)