It’s curious how adding civil liberties to the list of criteria would dramatically change the rankings.
For example, is Saudi Arabia still in the TOP 10 countries if I’m gay, a woman or trans?
For example, is Saudi Arabia still in the TOP 10 countries if I’m gay, a woman or trans?
Sure, if you aren't in these groups you have the luxury of completely freaking ignoring it.
I'm bisexual all the time. Transfolks are trans all the time. All queer folks are queer all the time even if you can't tell they are queer. So yes, everything is about it as much as you are always gonna be whatever nationality you are (even if you aren't legally a citizen), you'll always have your basic skin color, and so on.
You gotta be kidding, the Western world has immense support for queer people, especially recently.
We let queer folks die of aids in the 80s, though. I'm in my 40s, I remember that.
Folks stopped talking to me my 8th grade year because I "was lesbian". The next 2 years, people would go up to my friends and ask why they were even friends with me. "She's a lesbian, you know..." My school didn't let folks go to proms with a queer lover: Someone I knew got suspended for wearing a kilt-like skirt, and I know that at least a few admin didn't like hiring gay teachers because they thought they made kids gay. I graduated high school in 96, by the way.
When I started working, I could be fired for being queer. The military still had the Don't Ask, Don't tell, which basically meant that being queer was OK as long as you didn't act queer, say anything queer, or have a queer relationship.
In the 2000s, it became trendy to be bisexual. If you were female, that is. My sexuality was a fashion accessory. I was told I did it to attract men. Yay.
Queer folks couldn't marry someone of the same sex until after I moved out of the US. This is in the last 10 years.
Today, the most ill-supported group are transfolks. There definitely isn't support for all queer folks - have you seen the legislation?
Western countries aren't supportive enough to speak out against anti-queer groups or countries that would sentence folks like me to death in some cases.
Is it better than in the recent past? Sure, sometimes. But folks have died for that and still are.
A lot of it is tokenism and PR. Don't get me wrong, I know there are tons of people out there who support queer people! It's just that there's also tons of people who don't, which makes me sad.
I don't entirely agree with this wholly utilitarian approach, but if we're just talking about stupid and pointless rankings, as opposed to judicial philosophy, I don't know, seems fine for a general audience and people who aren't a general audience should seek publications and rankings that are more targeting towards their specific circumstances.
For instance, I don't have kids. If I read a list about 10 awesome things to do at Disney world I wouldn't grumble that it's all about family activities and wonder why there isn't more in there for singles. I'd look elsewhere than the inflight magazine for what single people should do at Disneyworld.
Let's circle back to the context of the article, which is about how easy it is for a foreigner to settle in a foreign country. The article doesn't specify who is this foreigner, and so the only reasonable approach is to assume it must apply to every single human being.
Of course! This is such a strange point to make in my opinion, I assure you even though you are a bisexual you are ignoring all kinds of things that don't affect you directly as you are only human. :)
It is a big complicated world filled with problems, everything can't possibly be equally urgent in equal proportions to every single person. If anything it is a good way to drive yourself into a depression and in-action, what good is impotent emoting really?
To get there is not easy and instead of driving oneself into depression, one could also proactively attempt to improve their community for everyone. e.g. The author of the article, could have included a more inclusive perspective. It would have made for a better article - imagine the plot-twist: sometimes, as a foreigner, it may be easier to move into a country with a little bit more bureaucracy in exchange for a more stable and happier life.
Sure. I'm just saying attempt effectively. And don't forget everyone is not everyone you like/agree with.
> The author of the article, could have included a more inclusive preselective
Eh? You want the article to better reflect that bisexsual dudes might want to think twice about moving to Saudi Arabia? One would assume that is common knowledge or at least the responsibility of the reader to further research. By the same token, some of the readers are conservative muslims. How does one simultaneously editorialize the article to be more inclusive/cater to them?
I hope my point is clear. I don't believe a more inclusive preselective is logically possible in every situation, the broader the subject the less chance you have of pleasing every possible reader.
Consider not spending your inclusivity tokens on every single thing you encounter simply because you'll run out. Spend wisely. :)
P.S. - Please don't shoot the messenger.
More common for whom? This is an example of the kind of bias I'm trying to point to. They're not mutually exclusive, and so neither is more important than the other. That's why we call them generally "civil liberties".
In some of the TOP 10 countries, having the wrong religion (or none) can be just as life-threatening as being gay. And in others, good luck even walking outside to sort out your papers if you're a woman without an escort or a trans person.