Why would some sports scandal have any impact on your perspective in regards to an international armed conflict?
I answered buh above, but I will make a comment here to ask you to take a look at my response, because it just isn't true that Feinberg was distinguishing transsexual and transgender in the way that buh seemed to interpret it. Transgender was a coalitional term that encompassed many identities (including transsexual), and many of those identities are ones that in the more common way transgender is used now would even be considered cisgender. But it is not correct or accurate to come away with an idea that transsexual is reduced to medical transition, nor that transgender (especially as Feinberg was using it) is about social transitioning. Transgender as Feinberg used it didn't have anything to do with "transitioning" at all: it was about everyone who crossed normative gender roles, including, for instance, a cis man drag queen. You wouldn't say that a man who chooses to wear dresses on the weekend but fully identifies as a man is "transitioning," but Feinberg would say that this man is transgender.
This isn't an accurate understanding of the difference between transgender and transsexual, especially in the context of the time period of this book.
Transgender is an umbrella coalitional term. Transgender is anyone who crosses the roles of normative gendered performance. This means that butches, queens, fairies, dykes, transvestites, and transsexuals would all fall under the category of transgender.
Transsexual was and is not about medical transition. Transsexual is the move from woman to man or from man to woman full time, regardless of whether or not medical intervention was/is one of the steps.
Transgender and transsexual are not synonyms and they are not interchangeable. This is especially true during this period of time Feinberg is writing in.
Transsexual is also not a slur, nor does have it sexual connotations. It's an identity and a reality for transsexuals.
I think every victim of the still on-going scoop of Indigenous children in North America would definitely agree that social workers are cops (not to mention the way they work with and alongside cops to intervene in people's lives in a way that disproportionately impacts disabled, queer, and racialized people and often imposes rules on them that are not required by the normative population with the fatal threat of withdrawing what little supports that exist).
I would actually say "hate crime prevention" is not a good thing, because I don't agree with the framing of hate as something to be intervened in through the racist, violent, oppressive criminal justice system of America which inflicts the very things it is being purported to prevent. When you use a framework of "hate crime" you are relegating safety and justice to the halls of the administrative, judicial, and policing systems of a fascist settler-colony. Don't be ridiculous.
Now if you wanted to learn more about why I said these things, I actually mentioned a book with a great analysis of this, but of course you won't read it before ridiculing me because you don't need to investigate anything before speaking, right? Shill for your politician all you like, but no one is obligated to agree with you, nor is someone who disagrees with you deserving of ridicule "comrade"
What a goon, social workers are cops too, but sure quote Mao when someone disagrees with you because disagreement can only arise if someone doesn't investigate. Obviously you're the only person who knows anything and you're always right, so until we reach your conclusions we must just not have studied hard enough
Social workers often work as arms of policing, actually. They are responsible for further entrenching the authoritative violence of America's racist systems into the families of marginalized people, and are responsible for literally stealing children in many cases. They hold the power of life and death over marginalized people and work intimately with cops.
Edit: I get it, he's your pet politician that you worked for, but he's still a democrat, get over yourself.
Hate crime prevention by its nature goes to policing, that is why they use the language "crime" and focus on criminalization, rather than justice (the networks of policing include far more than just officers on the streets)
It doesn't matter what type of "hate crime" you are trying to prevent via policing. Increased funding for policing and putting the safety of marginalized people into the hands of police is violence. There is nothing progressive in the least about increasing hate crime funding, when the entire criminal justice system is a network of violence and oppression against the marginalized people who are supposed to somehow be safer through more police interaction.
Edit: I recommend Dean Spade's Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, & The Limits of the Law for a really good analysis of the way that "hate crime" laws and hate crime policing are dangerous ways to deflect from real justice, and also serve to increase the amount of violence that marginalized people face.
"Increased funding for hate crime prevention" means increased policing, because currently in the US the only "prevention" for hate crime is policing. Any increase to policing, and any moves to put the "safety" of marginalized people into the hands of the police, is violence.
Edit: I recommend Dean Spade's Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, & The Limits of the Law for a really good analysis of the way that "hate crime" laws and hate crime policing are dangerous ways to deflect from real justice, and also serve to increase the amount of violence that marginalized people face.
If you like to read about clothing from a social perspective, I have a few recommendations (all available on libgen/anna's archive)
Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Dress of Women: A Critical Introduction to the Symbolism and Sociology of Clothing
Marjorie Graber's Vested Interests: Cross-dressing and Cultural Anxiety
Stephanie Cronin's Anti-Veiling Campaigns in the Muslim World: Gender, Modernism, and the Politics of Dress
They got a bunch of cops pinned under a bridge (by lobbing shit at them from above and firing fireworks at their cars). Cops had to abandon their cars and now they are dropping flaming cardboard down onto the cop cars, and when the cops come out to put out the fire they shoot fireworks at them.
Edit: they got the car, it's going up like a torch
That's actually a pretty interesting question. As Feinberg was using it, almost certainly transsexual was referring specifically to men and women, and not nonbinary or third-gender people, nor even intersex people. The language at the time for transsexual was fairly narrow. The thing that makes it so interesting is that, because the language was narrow, there would have been plenty of people who don't fall into the "binary transsexual" category that would have related to themselves and used the identifier of transsexual. So yes, there would have been "nonbinary" transsexual people.
It's impossible to apply concepts and social relations across time, so we can never know: how many people who considered themselves transsexual at the time would have used different language if they had access to it? For the same reason, many people who use terms like nonbinary now would be more likely to have used labels like dyke, butch, and fairy moreso than transsexual.
Not long after this book was written, there was a larger linguistic shift to a "transgender" framework. This is partially due to the success of Feinberg and other's like hir, as well as the rise of queer theory in the American academia. The linguistic linking of a multitude of gender transgressive identities under the single identity of transgender became a standard shorthand, and gained traction in the mainstream. This also functioned as a way to placate bio-essentialist viewpoints, by theorizing a split between sex and gender, and placing transgender as the transgression of socially constructed gender, while not challenging the biological sex.
This had the positive in that it helped cement a larger community identity that was easily recognizable and understandable to the mainstream, which can be helpful in organizing for recognition and rights. However it also had the negative effect of creating a universalizing narrative of what transgender was, which also forced many people originally intended to be encompassed under the term transgender into the position of cisgender. It created, in effect, a new binary: cisgender and transgender, which pushed some transgender people into the cisgender camp, and erased a lot of the nuance and complex identities that existed in favour of something more easily legible. This is also where a lot of the tension between the language of transgender and transsexual in current discourse stems. Transsexual was being replaced, transgender was being flattened to a more "inclusive" synonym for transsexual (not inclusive to cisgender people who were previously transgender, though), and transsexual as a term with its own specificity was being conflated with medicalism and robbed of its validity.
Currently you'll see arguments that transsexual is a reinforcing of bioessentialist or medicalist ideas of sex and gender, but I would argue it's the opposite. By conceding that transsexuality is inherently about medicalist interventionism, you accept that gender is the social construct and sex is the biological reality--but of course, sex is just as much a socially constructed category! And the difference between sex and gender is illegible in most non-English languages to begin with.
Anyway, bit of a tangent because the emergence of new linguistic structures at times of political upheaval are always fraught, and have complex histories. But as Feinberg was using it: transgender was meant to be a coalition of all people and identities that challenged the gender norms ("gender outlaws"), and so nonbinary identities (like hirs) would have been quite comfortable in the transgender umbrella (though usually with other local/subcultural language that was more specific), but likely would have felt just as constrained or unrepresented by transsexual identity as they would in cissexual identity.