Graphene users REPRESENT
Newpipe, now signed by Norman Reedus, verification picture and everything!
we need linux phones ASAP
They exist. People just don’t buy them. But there is a Ubuntu phone port you can install on your phone as an alternative to android.
But yeah it can get complicated like any Linux community project and isn’t at all mainstream.
People don’t buy them because they don’t fucking work.
We had a few good Linux phones back in the day but Nokia / Microsoft killed them trying to compete with iPhone OS and Android: Maemo / Meego were great but did not get a proper chance.
Jolla continued the legacy and Sailfish OS is still something worth checking out if you can find suitable hardware, or idk how complex it is to port it.
Seems to be new Jolla phone coming up at some point too: https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/next-gen-jolla-phone/23882
The Jolla was probably my favorite phone, but it broke so easily. I really hope they make something more sturdy this time around.
I think Linux phones will gain some real traction within five years. Last I heard, KDE is putting great effort into making apps for Plasma Mobile
I’ll believe it when I see it.
You cannot sideload on Linux.
Right, because side-loading is called “installing” on Linux
Does anyone know if existing linux phones can run 2FA apps such as Duo or Google authenticator?
deleted by creator
Or better apps like Aegis?
What is it with you people trying your best to get away from google but still using the most exchangeable app they have.Lots of jobs require BYOD today (like, most F500 companies) and they limit to non-rooted OSs. I use Aegis for personal apps but I cannot escape microsoft as long as I want to keep paying my mortgage.
They can run Keeppass, which does TOTP. It doesn’t do push notifs, like Duo does, though.
Why do you need the google Authenticator? Proton has it too. Which (from searching) looks like it’s compatible for the Ubuntu systems. But that’s just from the search. I ‘m personally just using it with a android right now. I am currently eyeing up the fairphone Ubuntu as my next phone
Why do you need the google Authenticator?
Systems at work use google authenticator for 2FA. Prior jobs have used Duo.
Google Authenticator is merely a generic TOTP token storage app. The person you’re replying to was pointing out that Google Authenticator, specifically, isn’t necessary. There are alternatives, and unless you’re using a company-owned device that restricts the apps you can use there is no way for work to dictate which app you use for TOTP tokens.
Duo, Okta Verify, and other 2FA apps that use push notifications and such, are a different beast altogether.
they are interchangeable. you can export from google to use in proton. I’ve set all my google logins to proton too. I’ve not experienced this ‘locked in’ situation if you’re using your own phone to run the app.
My work has me using 3 different 2FA apps depending on what service I’m accessing. It’s great! Especially with the noticable battery consumption increase after setting up 2 more 2FA apps than I had before
Same reason collectivist people like social media censorship and gun control, to make them feel “safe” even though all it does is centralize power. Besides hi ow many people have the tech skills to even know what third party app repositories are?
Contact your representative. And here’s F-droid’s article about it (including how to find your representative at the end of the article): https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html
This involves paying a fee, agreeing to non-negotiable terms, and uploading personal government ID documents.
False.
There is no fee.
This article is garbage.
I’d be more worried about having to send gov ID docs - more creepy control by Google.
You can send them your info for free, but for them to verify your app you need to pay $25
Let’s hope that the rest of the world, specifically Europe smash this ridiculous proposal apart for what it is. Europe has already sorted out USB-C etc. Its not perfect and they don’t get everything right, but certainly big enough to make stuff right.
At this stage the EU probably pushed Google to do this. They’ve taken a sharp turn to authoritarianism.
I think the European leadership has changed and we need to watch our elected officials. However don’t think Google was pushed into anything. They’re now he company that does the opposite of their original manifesto. They’re evil don’t need that.
They’re too busy forcing chat control and age gates through our collective throats.
Yep. The E.U. has allowed itself to be dominated for too long by the US megacorps. It has the talent, ideas, and manufacturing to tell US firms to bugger off … and the sooner, the better for us all.
they are also going hard on surveillance, private info too, backed by RU of course.i think russell vought is behind the anti-porn verifications in the EU
Unless you want hillbilly outrage slop destabilising your continent, you better get control away from American tech companies.
I’m starting to think these for-profit companies only care about making money.
gulp You might be right
Google’s developer verification will only run on mainstream Android with play services. It’s not supposed won’t be running in standard AOSP so the easiest solution would be to switch to a custom ROM like GrapheneOS.
They are also working to similarly kill custom ROMs. Just recently the GrapheneOS team mentioned that Google is no longer making their hardware drivers Open Source, and so compatibility with new phones means reverse engineering their own drivers - which is a big reason that custom ROMs support such narrow hardware options already and very often come with limitations and/or features that just don’t work. At best, they figure out how to make it work, but it takes time and updates can lag significantly behind.
We have a lot of options on the software side for avoiding google (or android), but very limited options on hardware. We need open source mobile hardware support ASAP.
They’re not so much working to kill custom roms as they are just not giving away their code anymore, going closed source for their own hardware.
Why do you think they’re making this arbitrary change?
While true, the pool of unlockable devices are dwindling fast.
even the OP is softlocking thier newer phones(arbitrary online application to unlock it) in the near future, i expect a full lock sooner or later
True…. I heard GrapheneOS is having trouble porting to the Pixel 10
Also, aren’t some critical apps like banking apps starting to ban unlocked / non-stock systems? Heard someone complaining about this a while ago.
Yes, banking apps, streaming apps, even some shopping apps. This has been a problem for a long time. Sometimes its for “security” reasons and sometimes its simply because the app uses Play Service APIs. Another issue on de-googled systems is push notifications, though that is often fixed through alternates like Unified Push
But remember, unlocking bootloader is harder and harder for many devices. And Google’s Play Integrity and API changes makes removing trace of unlocked bootloader harder. Many apps not just banking, ChatGPT, games, some of social media is completely unusable in that scenario.
You can just install Android. Only certified vendors will have the blocking activated.
Well, fuck. Most of people use F-Droid on “certified vendors” device.
If only. Most people I know have never heard of F-Droid… Only privacy-savvy people have.
I don’t have that choice in Denmark due to NemID.
Like other people have suggested, maybe get a second phone (one of those really cheap ones with play Services) and use that for that stuff, and keep your main personal phone google-free.
This is the way for me too
At this point the solution seems to just be having a second phone for that kinda shit
I don’t like that my neighbours are noisy, guess i should get a second house for when they’re shouting
ah yes because phones are $400,000-$1,000,000+
I’m comparing the impracticality, not the monetary impact
ah yes because those things are completely unrelated
-
Carrying two massive slabs because a few apps won’t run on one of them
-
Having a second home because some nights you can’t sleep in one due to noisy neighbours
Where the more simple solution would be:
- Have a phone that can run all of the apps you need so you don’t need to buy and carry around a second phone
- deal with your neighbours and sort stuff out rather than buy and travel to and from a second home.
-
What pisses me off it that they say they do this for security. It changes absolutely anything.
They really think that malware developers will say “oh no! I need to submit a picture of an id card to sign my malware! It’s literally impossible to submit a jpg of a stolen id card, I’m ruined and out of a job!”
What does it change? Waste 20 minutes of some malware developer while they register under a stolen id? They already have a system that scans for known malware and automatically remove it.
I don’t think it’s going to be as simple to verify as uploading a pic of an id
If it’s like the play store verification, it’s quite simple. The main problem is that once “verified”, Google publicly doxxes individual devs by publishing their residential address + private phone number + private Gmail on their dev page, and this is unacceptable for anyone except who used stolen identities
Thing is, Play Store is already filled with malware or near-malware from seemingly verified developers. I ran into several scam clone apps just today. It’s even snuck in through OEM apps.
Same on iOS, which supposedly verifies devs.
If ‘verification’ and curation is their idea of security, well… It appears their system is already overloaded, yet they want to expand it?
That was fundamentally F-Droid’s retort.
It’s absolutely insane that anyone pretends Google Play and the App Store are fine though.
Has anyone scrolled through any search and not seen a sea of heavily marketed scam apps?
They really think that malware developers will say “oh no! I need to submit a picture of an id card to sign my malware! It’s literally impossible to submit a jpg of a stolen id card, I’m ruined and out of a job!”
Which is irrelevant. They can block any malware - now impossible to do with sideloading of apps during pop-ups.
It’s always security when someone wants to take our freedom away. Always security…
Not always. It can also be about the children.
About keeping the children safe
That’s also security.
Not really, it’s more about children not being exposed to things usually. Hence starting with age requirements for porn and they move forward to other things.
“Protecting the children from harmful content and predators”, “protecting people from terrorists and criminals”, “protecting users from hackers” are all forms of security, and are all used as arguments to erode freedoms.
It all boils down to: just give up this bit of freedom so we can keep everyone safe.
Both things can be true. It definitely is better for security. It’s pretty much indisputably better for security.
But you know what would be even better for security? Not allowing any third-party code at all (i.e., no apps).
Obviously that’s too shitty and everyone would move off of that platform. There’s a balance that must be struck between user freedom and the general security of a worldwide network of sensitive devices.
Users should be allowed to do insecure things with their devices as long as they are (1) informed of the risks, (2) prevented from doing those things by accident if they are not informed, and (3) as long as their actions do not threaten the rest of the network.
Side-loading is perfectly reasonable under those conditions.
It’s pretty much indisputably better for security.
I dispute this. While adding extra layers of security looks good on paper, flawed security can be worse than no security at all.
Android packages already have to be signed to be valid and those keys already are very effective in practice. In effect these new measures are reinventing the wheel as to what a layperson would think this new system does.
Adding this extra layer in fact has no actual security benefit beyond posturing/“deterrence”. Catching a perpetrator is not the same thing as preventing a crime. Worse - catching a thief in meatspace has the potential to recover stolen goods, but not so in digital spaces - either the crime is damage or destruction of data for which no punishment undoes the damage or the crime is sharing private data which in practice would almost certainly have been immediately fenced to multiple data brokers.
And were only getting started with this security theater:
- Nothing prevents an organization from hiring a developer for long enough to register before being flushed (or the same effect with a burner account on fiver)
- Nothing in this program does anything to get code libraries vetted - many of these developers may accidentally be publishing code from poisoned wells that they have no practical knowledge of.
- None of these measures make scams less profitable.
- None of this addresses greyware - software that could technically qualify as legal (because the user agreed to terms of service for a service of dubious value)
- All of this costs time and resources that will likely inevitably be shouldered on low paid engineers that could have put that effort to better uses.
- Metrics and statistics may likely be P-hacked to reflect that the new system as a success (because there’s internal pressure to make it look good) this turning-security-into-press-releases would have collateral of making accountability overall worse.
But you know what would be even better for security?
While we’re at it we could add the tropes of removing network connectivity, or switch to using clay tablets kept in a wooden box guarded by a vengeful god. Both of those would be more secure, too.
Users should be allowed to do insecure things with their devices
100% agree with you here - it’s fundamentally the principle of “Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”. Users should be given the tools and freedom to do as they want with their property - up until it affects another person or their property in an unwanted way.
Most Android owners don’t even know they have Android phones. They are not informed.
Of course they know that. It’s about power and money. After all, they already have a security program that filters out malware. If we believe their stated reasoning (which we don’t), they’re tacitly admitting that their current security program is a complete failure, and also that they will not try to fix it.
European devs: Our laws will protect us!
Meanwhile, our laws:
Article 30
Traceability of traders
- Providers of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders shall ensure that traders can only use those online platforms to promote messages on or to offer products or services to consumers located in the Union if, prior to the use of their services for those purposes, they have obtained the following information, where applicable to the trader:
(a) the name, address, telephone number and email address of the trader;
(b) a copy of the identification document of the trader or any other electronic identification as defined by Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (40);
How is trader defined? Is it a developer that’s selling apps or also one that’s just providing it for free?
Bear in mind that an open source license is a contract and it usually involves some form of reciprocity, like crediting the dev by name. That’s in principle not different from a sponsorship deal, where some sports stadium gets the name of a corporation.
The actual definition is even wider, though. I don’t see who you get out of that.
Trader defined in the DSA
‘trader’ means any natural person, or any legal person irrespective of whether it is privately or publicly owned, who is acting, including through any person acting in his or her name or on his or her behalf, for purposes relating to his or her trade, business, craft or profession;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/En/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065#art_3
If F-droid ever has more than 50 employees, annual turnover over EUR 10 million, or over EUR 10 million on the balance sheet, then they will have to collect the same information.
“Google stands for free and open internet”
https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/keep-internet-free-and-open/
Aged like milk.
Don’t be evilBe evil when it makes money.
And of course the motto should have been, “Don’t do evil.” That would have been a respectable goal. But it wasn’t, because even back then they only wanted to be slightly better than Microsoft.
aged like a corpse in a bathtub more like it.
Mmmm head cheese
Don’t be something or other, hey check out this week’s doodle!
The justification is simple, I don’t see the confusion, they want absolute power and for all alternatives to wither and die ? What is there not to understand ?
I am perfectly ok with android apps being required to be signed by not just a certificate (they always were just it could be self signed and just needed to match to upgrade without removing data) but a list of trusted entities.
As long as:
- I can install my own key on my phone (I’d I am trusted)
- major distributors like fdroid and have a key installed without friction (like web CAs)
- Google let’s me mark their key as untrusted (I probably won’t but I should be able to refuse things they trust (at install time, not disabling preloaded apps like settings)
Without this it feels too much extending the monopoly despite being forced to allow 3rd party stores.
Technically illegal where I live.
In Brazil you can’t sell a device with a given feature and then remove said feature in a software update. Even Apple, known for never allowing downgrades, was forced to downgrade and pay a fine to a customer after his iPad 3 updated to iOS 7 and lost an iOS 6 feature.
In other words… every single Android device sold until today in Brazil allows sideloading. Even if a single customer uses a sideloaded app, removing the ability to sideload freely would be illegal, and because the original feature didn’t require a developer signature it can’t be enforced now.
The issue is, as always, if this went to court somebody would have to manage to explain to a tech illiterate judge what a “developer signature” is, how this relates to “sideloading” and so on.
They’re not removing a feature though, so that whole argument falls over instantly.
Today: I can sideload a non verified apk.
After the update: I grab the same apk and I can’t sideload it.
That’s not removing a feature though, it’s just changing it. Side loading is the feature.
You could do something with the device, now you can’t.
That’s illegal here.
Also, let’s stop calling it “sideloading”. Sideloading has a bad vibe. We just want to INSTALL software on our own devices.
thank god for brazil
… Brazil is one of the first countries this’ll go into effect and I also remember something about how that first batch of countries was chosen because their governmemts support this change.
because their governmemts support this change.
I can see how Google’s PR team might use this argument, but it’s certainly illegal in Brazil so our government most definitely isn’t supporting this decision. Also, it needs to be way more specific than “government” - who exactly is endorsing this? Procon? Anatel? Polícia Federal?
Either way, the actual reason for targeting Brazil as one of the first is because we do love our piracy, which naturally translates into sideloading being frequent.
brazil and piracy are a match made in heaven, I remember when I was 8 and my mom went with me to a openstreet market to buy xbox360 games, all were pirate copies selling in open sky to anyone to buy, copyright be dammed, and of course can’t forget the famous “gato” to watch all tv channels for free with a android box that definetly does not has a backdoor in it
Best of luck to Brazil then. Hopefully you get them to change course.
Brazil has actually been really good about holding the mega corps to account recently. I’m very hopeful for them.
The problem might be that Google will argue this isn’t a downgrade at all, but an upgrade (for “security” reasons). I don’t want to be a pessimist, but the tech illiterate judges could eat that up.
That’s exactly what they’re hoping for, and why we need to keep pouring out our outcry to reach them and hope they become more tech-literate.
technically you will still be able to install apps from outside the play store, but the developer will need to verify their identity with google.
Of course, most developers will refuse to do so (myself included), and so most apps will not be able to be installed. From a technical perspective, installing apps from other sources will still be allowed. So i can see judges ruling that this is not a feature removal.
You and I both know this is google killing non play store apps, but I don’t think the tech illiterate judges will see it that way.
Technically you can still install apps unsigned through ADB.
Considering it’s easier than ever to start up something like Shizuku, it could be used to grant f-droid access to install apps bypassing the requirement.
Obviously not a good solution by any means.
but the developer will need to verify their identity with google.
If I purchase a device today, it’s got the ability to install apps that are not verified. This is a feature. If now it’s restricted, it violates our code.
Starting next year, Android will require all apps to be registered by verified developers in order to be installed by users on certified Android devices.
Are they actually proposing to make any previously sold devices “certified” through a software update, though? Your points are right on if this edict applied to all devices.
A “certified Android device” is a device running Google Play Services, Play Protect, Google’s WideVine DRM scheme and a few other requirements. If you purchase a device from a known manufacturer, like Samsung, you’re falling into this category.
Isn’t this illegal in Europe? Was that the whole point of forcing apple to allow alternative app stores?
Technically, third party app stores are allowed. Developers “only” register with google to receive a developer certificate. Isn’t apple doing the same thing in response to the EU regulations and that has been allowed?
Seems like a weasel around the requirement to get rid of the actual benefit of 3rd party stores.
If you have a Mac, have you ever tried installing an app and have it refuse because it’s not signed by Apple, and then you had to go into settings and click “allow anyway?”
This is that, except without the allow anyway feature, like iOS. It doesn’t matter if it comes from the play store or elsewhere, as this story originally had us believe.
No, Google is following Apple’s exmaple.
I can’t believe how useless the EU regulations are.
It’s because they regularly overstep their bounds and force overseas companies to do things they have no right to make them do, which actively hurt their business. Of course companies are going to do their very best to comply while making it have as little impact as possible!
Have we ever lived in a more stallmanwasright.jpg time?
Ah. Well. About software. Stallman was right about software
that’s what we generally mean. he has some ideas about things other than software we are best not to give too much attention.
Enlighten me.
I never wanted him to be wrong more than right now. Except for tomorrow, it’s probably going to bé worse, tomorrow
Stallman has never been and never will be wrong.
Except when it comes to women and girls, he’s absolutely wrong
Don’t forget about his views on sex with animals!
Wait, what?
Or his views on seemingly eating toe nails right off of his feet in public.
Or his views on seemingly eating toe nails right off of his feet in public.
I feel that’s a personal matter though. Stallman can have whatever opinion he wants on that one.
I sometimes like to read his political posts:
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2025-jul-oct.html
And honestly? I mostly agree with them? Like this:
ABC ordered to pay Antoinette Lattouf another $150,000 for unlawful termination over Gaza Instagram post.
But a company faced with enormous threats wielded by fascist officials who demand that certain views be suppressed will treat such penalties as the normal cost of sucking up.
The [Israeli] army says that HAMAS is using apartment buildings for “surveillance”, and has bombed some of those buildings to destroy them. Based on this logic, the army might bomb every tall building in Gaza City with the large bombs that the US is providing
He has some questionable beliefs as well, though for unusual reasons. He accepts non-binary people but refuses to use they/them pronouns because he doesn’t like the ambiguity of singular/plural pronouns. So he has invented the neopronouns per/pers to refer to singular non-binary persons. I genuinely think no other person on this planet could hold this opinion.
Okay that’s all cool or cool-and-stubbornly-autistic. But he has some other opinions that are not, about consent and age.
So the blanket ‘fuck yeah, stallman!’ Doesn’t really fly anymore.
Hasn’t he admitted to changing his opinion after learning about the effects on children? I’m not in the loop about this.
But yeah, you definitely shouldn’t treat his words as gospel. A lot of questionable-at-best stuff in there.
Hasn’t he admitted to changing his opinion after learning about the effects on children?
He did. The argument against him was half based on misquotes and incomplete sentences, but the other half was indeed once his opinion - he argued that age of consent was a dumb concept and that instead it should be based on what the child wants to do and any harm they were subjected to.
He later on said he regretted this view because it was explained to him that there’s no ability to consent and this always causes harm to the child. His original arguments were, in typical Stallman fashion, quite obsessed with definitions themselves, almost as if the subject at hand didn’t really matter he was just bothered about how the definition had some flaws.
But even with that in mind… I can’t feel comfortable knowing he defended this point of view, and it does significantly harm my opinion about him.
Everything you said there is pretty typical with high functioning ASD, up to and including others being uncomfortable with past behavior and statements.
I can’t say I disagree with him - in an ideal world. Now all we need is a world where it’s easy enough to tell if someone is mature enough to make those kinds of decisions, no one uses power imbalances to allow them to achieve their desires, kids are fully aware of the impact their decisions will have on them decades in the future, and on and on. That’s clearly not the world we live in, and I expect it will never be, and so we err on the side of caution, and don’t condone children engaging in certain activities until they’re older, and even then only with people of a similar age until such a time where trying to stop them from engaging in potentially reckless behavior is more harmful than allowing them to do so.
He accepts non-binary people but refuses to use they/them pronouns because he doesn’t like the ambiguity of singular/plural pronouns.
I agree with this criticism, but the entire English language is full of bullshit so you might as well consider using Esperanto
as someone who is not a native english speaker when I first encountered people people prefer they/them I also found the same problem of ambiguity, and took quite a while to get used to it
I genuinely think no other person on this planet could hold this opinion.
Eh, I’m pretty close to this opinion.
A family member came out as non-binary, and I don’t like to use they/them (for the same reason as Stallman), but I also think creating my own pronouns is more offensive, so I just use their first name, unless I can’t easily avoid it (like this sentence). I’m not trying to be offensive, I just don’t like they/them as angular pronouns. I also don’t like “you” as both singular and plural, but I’m also not ready to use “y’all”, so I refer to second person groups without the pronoun (if feasible).
On a related note, I also think gender is a social construct and not actually “real.” Sex exists because it’s a biological thing, but it shouldn’t be directly tied to your role in society. To change my mind, I need empirical evidence that there’s some unique difference between men and women (brain wave patterns?) that aligns groups of non-binary people or aligns trans people with people of the opposite sex. I personally don’t think this exists, and gender fluidity is more a symptom of a culture that isn’t well equipped to handle people who don’t nicely fit into a bucket. I think gender is a useful metaphor for what’s going on, and I absolutely support people fighting for using it to get the recognition they need, but I don’t think it’s an actual, scientifically proven thing.
The only real difference is that I use first names to refer to non-binary people’s first names more frequently than to binary people. I hope that doesn’t offend anyone, I just really don’t like using the same pronoun for both singular and plural.
Singular they is over 600 years old by the way: https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/?tl=true
As a trans person, my gender dysphoria is not something caused entirely by social gender roles. Medical transition has greatly alleviated the majority of it. Anecdotally, within the first week of hormone therapy, my dysphoria improved dramatically while only being out of the closet to 2 people outside of my therapist and the medical professionals who prescribed my hormones. It has continued to improve, although I’m still waiting for the surgery that will resolve the remaining things that hormones can’t fix.
Also, there are studies around brain structure differences between men and women, and transgender people tended to have brain structures in line with their gender, not their assigned sex at birth: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence#Brain_structure
Perhaps you should believe people when they tell you who they are, and get past your discomfort drawing arbitrary lines in grammar regarding pronouns, when singular they predates the fall of the Byzantine Empire by 75 years.
Also the “gendered brain” stuff you’re saying……wouldn’t that mean that gender isn’t a social construct and isn’t “fluid”, and is in fact a binary?
“They” as singular was really only made for when you didn’t know the sex of the person you were referring to, not as a pronoun for someone who you do. It had nothing to do with “gender identity” because that wasn’t a thing. Gender and sex were synonyms, 2 words for the same thing.
Eg “can my friend come to the party too?” “Yeah sure, what do they like on their pizza so I can make sure there is one they like?”
Not
“Can John come to the party?” “Yeah sure, what do they like on their pizza?”
In this instance you’d always have used “he” because you know with pretty much absolute certainty that John is male on account of being a male name.
It has only very recently been used as a choice that people tell people they want to be referred to by, because some people now believe in a “gender identity” being a separate thing to sex.
It existing as a singular pronoun doesn’t mean that it was used in the same context as it is now.
Singular they is over 600 years old by the way
Sure, and “you” used to be exclusively plural. Language changes, and now you is exclusively singular in some parts of the world (e.g. the US “South” where “y’all” is the plural).
I want separate singular and plural pronouns. Some languages do this properly and don’t even have gendered pronouns, such as Tagalog:
- he/she/singular they - siya(possessive = niya)
- plural he/she/they - sila (possessive = nila)
- singular you - iyo (possessive = niyo)
- plural you - inyo (possessive = ninyo)
there are studies around brain structure differences between men and wome
Sure, but sample sizes are small and many times they don’t seem to control for hormone therapy.
That said, this one looks interesting:
A 2009 MRI study by Luders et al. found that among 24 trans women not treated with hormone therapy, regional gray matter concentrations were more similar to those of cisgender men than of cisgender women, but there was a significantly greater volume of gray matter in the right putamen compared to cisgender men. Like earlier studies, researchers concluded that transgender identity was associated with a distinct cerebral pattern.
And this one:
Rametti et al. (2011) studied 18 trans men who had not undergone hormone therapy using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), an MRI technique which allows visualizing white matter, the structure of which is sexually dimorphic. Rametti et al. discovered that the trans men’s white matter, compared to 19 cisgender gynephilic females, showed higher fractional anisotropy values in posterior part of the right SLF, the forceps minor and corticospinal tract". Compared to 24 cisgender males, they showed only lower FA values in the corticospinal tract. The white matter patterns in trans men were found to be shifted in the direction of cis men.
And this review of other studies:
A 2021 review of brain studies published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “although the majority of neuroanatomical, neurophysiological, and neurometabolic features” in transgender people “resemble those of their natal sex rather than those of their experienced gender”, for trans women they found feminine and demasculinized traits, and vice versa for trans men.
This suggests there may be developmental differences between trans and cis individuals, and there seems to be a correlation between trans people and the sex associated with the gender they identify as.
The body of available science certainly indicates more researchis needed and could lead to answers that show exactly what differences exist between cis and trans people. I sincerely hope that happens. But as it stands,the research isn’t conclusive.
Perhaps you should believe people when they tell you who they are
Let’s be extremely clear here, my support for policy will not be impacted whatsoever by the scientific research, regardless of the outcome. If you feel like hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery or whatever other treatments will help you, you should be able to get them. Full stop. If you want to be treated as a man or a woman, I’ll do that. If you want to be called by different pronouns, I’ll do my best to do it, I just don’t like pronouns that are both singular and plural because they can lead to confusion. That’s it.
If there was a generally accepted gender-neutral set of pronouns (like in my example), I’d use them nearly exclusively. If the scientific evidence was clear cut, I’d admit as much. Neither is the case, so I’m left to find a happy medium that works for my and others in my life.
When I consider changes to language, I try to start from a prescriptivist position rather than a descriptivist, which to me means assuming language should stay static to ensure a common understanding rather than fragmented meanings that lead to misunderstandings. If there is a change in language, it should justify itself through simplifying terms or adding a new meaning that other words lack, while avoiding harming the meanings of pre-existing words.
I use they/them pronouns for non-binary people as an example of this mindset in action because I think the benefits far outweigh any cons. With a greater understanding that non-binary people new language was needed, and they/them seems to me a very natural fit as I would already think to use it when asking about a stranger even before I knew of non-binary as a concept (“oh your friend is coming? What’s their name, are they a boy or a girl?). In my experience having a very close non-binary friend I have found that context tells whether I’m using they as a singular/plural pronoun ~90% of the time, and when it fails it adds maybe 20 seconds of clarification to explain I was referring to person’s name.
I think what you’re saying should be taken as inspiration for further evolving how we use those terms to better separate between singular and plural use rather than try backtracking on how it has already evolved in common use, and I think the answer (for me at least) lies in your very comment. Much like “you” vs “you all”, going forward I’ll put a little effort into using they/them in a singular context and use “them all” or “they all” as a plural. Maybe it will catch on and 30 years from now we’ll be saying “theyal” and “theyal’ll” as shorthand for “they all” and “they all will.”
“theyal” and “theyal’ll” as shorthand for “they all” and “they all will.”
Oof, “they’ll’ll” sounds awful.
I wish we could use “it” instead, but unfortunately, that’s offensive since it has connections to inanimate objects and non-human animals. If we could somehow break that meaning, maybe we’d get somewhere w/ a gender-neutral, third person singular pronoun. Or maybe we can use one of the created ones (though per/pers is awful IMO). But we also have words that don’t have gender-neutral terms, such as uncle/aunt, but for some reason we do have many others, like cousin.
It’s an annoying nut to crack, which is why I tend to use people’s names more and only use they/them when there is no reasonable alternative.
Ok, let’s say he’s right only when he talks about software.
That should do it. I hope.
EDIT: well and hardware too I guess.
EDIT2: oh and paid public toilets.
I criticized singular they/them for increasing language ambiguity and suggested replacing it with something new like xe/xer multiple times. The reply is usually a shitstorm and downvote tornado. I’ve given up on that front.
Probably because singular “they” predates singular “you” grammatically. Should we go back to using thou and thee instead of the singular you as well?
I always found this argument funny because how would you use pronouns for someone whose gender you do not know? They. It’s they. E.g. you are given the sentence: Jordan went to the store to buy apples. And you want to ask a followup question regarding how many, you reply: How many apples did they buy? It’s not that complicated. They has been used for gender ambiguity in everyone’s lives since grammar school. People just have an inherent bias towards trans folks and it’s incredibly depressing and sad.
It hasn’t been used for “gender” ambiguity, but sex ambiguity, because the separation of sex and gender is only a recent thing and it’s not even unanimously accepted.
Oh my gosh, you’re being pedantic. It has been used for “gender” ambiguity for quite some time. If you choose to be ignorant, then that’s your dill, pickle. At the end of the day, you get to choose whether you make someone happy, or sad. Why is that difficult? Why can’t you comprehend the concept of providing joy to someone? Why can’t you just be nice? That’s what this whole thing is about, right? You can either choose to be nice, or not. And I’m so tired of arguing with people to be nicer. Why can’t people get it through their thick skulls, that people just want to live and be considerate of each other. That’s what we all want, right?
I always found this argument funny because how would you use pronouns for someone whose gender you do not know? They. It’s they. E.g. you are given the sentence: Jordan went to the store to buy apples. And you want to ask a followup question regarding how many, you reply: How many apples did they buy?
And that’s not how English was taught to me or 99℅ of the population (including English as a second or third language) 20+ years ago. Singular they was only used for situations where the gender (read as superficially visible sex) was factually unknown. You see a forgotten umbrella and never saw who forgot it: “Somebody forgot their umbrella.” As soon as you only got a glimpse on the person forgetting it you would make a guess about he/she.
They has been used for gender ambiguity in everyone’s lives since grammar school.
If you’re younger than ~30 and from Great Britain, maybe. GB were the first to formalize and teach it like that less than 2 decades ago (if I recall correctly).
People just have an inherent bias towards trans folks and it’s incredibly depressing and sad.
That’s bullshit projection.
I, a non-native speaker, complain about increased ambiguity of the language because of singular they as a personal pronoun and make a proposal about new pronouns for the purpose.
You: Ah, must be transphobe. Let’s ignore everything he said (which doesn’t relate to transphobia at all).
It’s so frustrating not to be able to have a discussion about stuff making a language harder than it needs to be without people invoking transphobia, like, instantly.
But hey, I called it: can’t have a discussion about it and I’ve given up on it.
edit: tiny add-on. I was still taught gender-neutral he and only heard about they later while being discouraged to use it in writing.
Thank you for agreeing with me! Singular they is only used for gender ambiguity! So, trans folks, or non-binary folks, who choose to go by an ambiguous pronoun, use it. You got it! Unfortunately, I am older than 30, my knees might be older, haha. Also, I’m not from GB/UK. I know grammar school nay have caused some ambiguity there, but grammar school is used in many English speaking countries. Usually, to refer to elementary, primary, or grade school.
Regarding your last diatribe, I didn’t even invoke transphobia. For someone so adamant on literal, linguistic definitions, you seemed to overlook the word bias. You have a predispositioned outlook towards trans people, because of your feelings on linguistic definitions. You inherently disregard hundreds of years of evolution in the English vernacular. Words have changed, evolved, and adopted different meanings throughout time. Do we need to cast out the word gay, because it now also means homosexual, when it originated as happy? Do we need to cast out the word terrific? You know, the word that was a synonym for horrific? I understand that you are ESL, but every language has different dialects, vernacular, and idioms. It’s why a thong in Australia is vastly different, than a thong in America. You can either adapt your knowledge of the language, or choose to emotionally hurt people on the premise of being “right and literal”. There is no need to create something new when society has deemed it acceptable. Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong. The question you must ask yourself is, “Do I care more about being right, or emotionally supporting another human being?”. If you have trouble answering that, well, we all have our answer then, don’t we? Cheers, mate. Hope you find, or have found, peace, love, and happiness.
I always found this argument funny because how would you use pronouns for someone whose gender you do not know? They. It’s they. E.g. you are given the sentence: Jordan went to the store to buy apples. And you want to ask a followup question regarding how many, you reply: How many apples did they buy?
And that’s not how English was taught to me or 99℅ of the population (including English as a second or third language) 20+ years ago. Singular they was only used for situations where the gender (read as superficially visible sex) was factually unknown. You see a forgotten umbrella and never saw who forgot it: “Somebody forgot their umbrella.” As soon as you only got a glimpse on the person forgetting it you would make a guess about he/she.
You’re contradicting yourself here. You’re saying you were taught to use singular they when gender is unknown, yet claim that “How may apples did they buy” is wrong based on how you were taught English.
Does it matter whether gender is unknown or just unresolved? Not really, singular they is clearly intended to be a gender neutral pronoun and works in any situation where gender is ambiguous. It’s not wrong for people to adopt it as a pronoun to refer to themselves any more than it is for a trans man to adopt “he/his” or a trans woman to adopt “she/hers.”
At best your refusal to use it makes you sound like one of those people who gets offended at the word “literally” gaining a colloquial meaning that differs from its original definition. At worst, it presents as transphobia to claim “language purity” as the reason to be so adamantly against something that the trans community has largely adopted.
Doesn’t feel like you want to have an honest argument when you ask how far we should go back on a proposal about going forward and don’t address the single motivator ambiguity.
Correct, because there is no argument to be had. Intentionally refusing to use someone’s pronouns is unacceptable, every time, with 0 exceptions. If there’s a dire need to be explicitly clear you’re talking about a single person, you could just use their name in that instance.
You don’t get to decide how other people refer to you. I’m sorry but you don’t have that authority. You can dislike people using the “wrong” pronouns, but you cannot compel the usage of the ones you want to be called because of your beliefs. If I say my pronouns are “your majesty” it’s not unacceptable if you don’t use them.
Unless he’s championing paedophilia and bestiality, which he has done on a number of occasions. Or being an absolute creep with women, which he’s also done.
🪴
🥗
