My understanding is that we obligated Japanese & Korean auto makers to open some plants in Canada/NAFTA/USMCA in order to gain access to our market. I don’t see why the requirements should be any different for Chinese automakers.
I think the tariffs we applied to BYD were different because China bad and it was done to placate the USA. I don’t think we should single out China to placate America (especially if it doesn’t work).
Are you nitpicking an ally for using “exclusive” instead of “principal”?
MapleEngineer doesn’t actually know for sure that he has never been attracted to a trans woman. So it’s important to correct him when he says he has an exclusive sexual interest in cis-women.
Is that your point? That failing to acknowledge the nuance that sexuality exists on a spectrum must be addressed confrontationally because it’s erasure?
Transphobia and homophobia are too often literally (yes, I mean literally) beaten into men. We have to work to unlearn it. If an ally says he wouldn’t be able to keep it up if he learned the woman he was courting was assigned male at birth, believe him, but don’t discount him as an ally. Imo your efforts are better spent combating active transphobia than policing your allies. If their terminology hurts you, suggest better ways to articulate their points but do it collaboratively instead of confrontationally.
Just my two cents.
If you sincerely can’t keep track of an acronym like LGBTQIA2S, I totally understand. I find it helpful to use people with minority “Sexual Orientations and Gender Identites” (SOGI). You could say
Or
Or
It’s not a super widespread abbreviation, so I’d recommend spelling it initially as I did in my first paragraph. I don’t think it’s best practice to say “SOGIs” Because everyone has a SOGI and typically we’re trying to talk specifically about those that face(d) disenfranchisement and bigoted violence.
If you’re not sincerely struggling with the acronym, and enjoy trivializing people for fun, I hope you think of me everything you stub your toe.