now that I think about it more, "sex Change surgeries on minors" are a genuine issue that happens quite regularly. however it's not the kind most people talk about.

I mean "corrective" surgery on intersex people, where the doctor often decides what gender the Child should be based on the size of the penis and then "corrects" or sometimes mutilates the baby's genitals.

that is also one of the rare scenarios where the kind of "sex change surgery on minors" that most people talk about could be relevant. just imagine the pain a boy would go through after hearing that the doctor cut up their genitals at birth because they didn't fit neatly into the binary that is expected of babies.

so, no. I don't think the kind of "sex change surhery on minors" you're talking about should be banned. it generally isn't a thing, and sometimes it's a good thing. we should focus on the horrible things that are done to intersex people.

There are a lot of (albeit impressive) rhetorical smokes screens I'm choosing not to engage with, but there are many interesting points of conversation to be had here.

Staying on topic here:

so, no. I don’t think the kind of “sex change surhery on minors” you’re talking about should be banned. it generally isn’t a thing, and sometimes it’s a good thing.

This is an interesting take. If it's sometimes a good thing, why does it matter whether or not it's generally a thing? And, what evidence do you have that allowing them to be legal tends to do more good than harm?

This is an interesting take. If it's sometimes a good thing, why does it matter whether or not it's generally a thing?
Because many people talk about it like it's a thing that happens all the time to trans children when really, it isn't. There's a lot of fearmongering around this. I think pointing out how insignificant this topic is is important. I don't have sources that it generally does more harm than good and tbh I'm too lazy to go dig something up for an argument on lemmy. However i think by ignoring my "rhetorical smokescreens" you missed an important point. I think intersex children that have experienced mutilation during infancy are a great example for why sex change surgeries on minors should not be made completely illegal. Generally I don't think this topic warrants governmental interference.

Because many people talk about it like it’s a thing that happens all the time to trans children when really, it isn’t. There’s a lot of fearmongering around this. I think pointing out how insignificant this topic is is important.

It's fair to fearmonger over this topic. It causes severe harm and injury to the children who get it in the vast majority of cases. You're right that it's also important to talk about how few people are actually getting these surgeries, it has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal.

I think intersex children that have experienced mutilation during infancy are a great example for why sex change surgeries on minors should not be made completely illegal.

Is your argument that mutilating children during infancy should be legal, or illegal? Or, is your argument that sex change surgeries should be allowed to reverse such mutilation? If it's the latter, would you say that's the only type of sex change operations available for minors?

Well yeah, let's get the Mastodon devs a cool $15 million so they can hire more devs and compete. /s

You fail to understand open source. You want it better? Get fucking involved and stop asking people who are coding for free to compete with the code of an organization that has millions in dollars backing them and a team of professional developers.

Either get involved or start dumping money into the Mastodon devs patreon accounts.

Whichever you do is way more constructive than bitching about an open source program made by volunteers and comparing it to a slick corporate product with literally millions backing it and it's development. That's just sucking corporate dick by any other name.

Further, pretty sure block lists were and are available on Mastodon.

No wonder Trump won, everyone wants to suck at the teat of the rich instead of saying "we don't need you."

Mirroring the entire network is what makes it act like Twitter.

I'm not convinced that that's A) something we should want, and B) a fight we can win. Trying to recreate what already exists, using technology that's not really suited for it, feels like an uncanny skeuomorphism to me.

That definitely makes it accessible to newcomers. But costs are going to gatekeep smaller communities from hosting relays as the network scales. There are plenty of obscure conversations happening on the far corners of the network that don’t concern the majority, requiring a full network mirror of this activity just increases cost for minimal perceived benefit.

There does need to be some level of seeding, I think the big push for getting starter packs and the like into Mastodon is an example of that need. At the same time, it’s hard to justify spending the money on extra storage and computer just so I can see posts on furry bluesky or some other niche but highly active community.

That’s a good set of points and I agree. I am starting to think this technical difference reflects underlying social / experiential differences:

• ActivityPub “clumpy” federation (like a region of city-states) where your view of the network is based on who you and others in your instance interact with - interoperability, but not homogeneity of content or interaction
• Atproto “swarm” federation (like a pool of taxis sharing livery, with possibly-but-not-necessarily independent operators), endpoints are exchanging data to compose a single virtual platform out of replaceable interoperating parts - federated but not decentralized, having a primary network (the relay service) holding everyone’s experience together

To me the former feels like it encourages a spirit like original Internet communities (MUDs, BBSs, message boards) while the latter produces that of branded app platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat).