Ritin Rai seems to be correct, but apparently the law firms are Karanjawala and Meraki Law, says moneycontrol? https://www.moneycontrol.com/europe/?url=https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/startup/ashneer-grovers-emergency-plea-against-bharatpe-governance-review-tossed-out-by-singapore-international-arbitration-centre-8168321.html

Is Ikigai also involved?

Why would it be trollish? Seems like a genuine question and a fair one to make, considering it is an important life decision. Whether it's possible for strangers to give useful advice, we can't say, as the decision has to be subjective and based on what OP wants to achieve and is more passionate about.

Some questions to ask your/OP-self: have you enjoyed the law you have learnt so far? Maybe try it out for a little bit, even just one or two intro subjects might be useful for later in life, and maybe you'll discover a new passion. You can still drop after a few months rather than immediately, right?

A lot of these YouTube shorts are basically troll bait / culture war fodder in some US alt-right echo chamber, which doesn't really have relevance in an Indian LGBTQ context. Have published your posts without the videos, if people are interested they can search for the case and commentaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloe_Cole

It certainly seems like an interesting and complicated case that is worth discussing, but it seems a lot of the nuance and substance also gets lost in the dog whistles of the culture war 'cause': https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-03-02/transgender-patients-chloe-cole-lawsuit-against-kaiser-lgbtq-rights

You had inserted a lot of videos, which need to be watched by this poor moderator since prima facie they seem like they could include hate speech or trollish with incendiary titles like 'Woke Gender Lies, Child Abuse, and Mutiliation'...

Do you want to help and include a tl;dr summary of each video / what your point is, which would also actually help if someone wants to respond without having to watch those videos?

Somewhat related thread: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/248471-firms-with-financial-regulatory-and-fintech-practises#comment-252437

Are you trying to say you're an Andrew Tate fanboy without saying you're an Andrew Tate fanboy?

Please explain your actual point / the point of the video, unless it is: women are allowed to have opinions about the kind of guy they want to date? What does feminism have to do with people allegedly having less sex? How is it destroying the fabric of society? We understand being alive in this day and age as a human being can be difficult. So what does feminism have to do with it?

Marking this trollish for now / unpublishing, unless there is actually some substance or attempt at making this about law in some form...

Thanks for your service and welcome back :) For those who missed it, this was Queer Customer's last AMA, so maybe read this first and so there's not too much repetition: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/229239-pride-month-im-a-queer-lawyer-practising-in-bombay-ask-me-anything

Ps: Smart and dumb questions will be published, but obviously trollish or homophobic questions will not be, despite Queer Customer's kind offer to be patient :)

That's ok, please have fun there, and also thank you for your feedback: you have successfully confirmed that our censorship was not aggressive enough and letting too much hateful / trollish content through that was in no way bona fide.

We'll be tightening moderation up a notch, lest LI become a Nazi bar: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar

For those who wanted to have / have been having toxic political discussions on LI and now won't anymore: please send this guy / gal a message on /pol/ to thank him for the stronger future banhammer :)

Some of what you say borders on hate speech or ignorance or both. Giving you the benefit of doubt, and reading it as ignorance, you are oversimplifying greatly. If gender reassignment surgery is carried out by a professional, the risk of harm to oneself is as limited as the risk of harm when you get a nose or ear piercing ("self-mutilation by the mentally ill, this should be forbidden!"), or other body modifications like tattoos, cosmetic surgery (including non-elective cosmetic surgery after accidents or violence), surgeries or procedures to 'correct' things you may be born with, such as cleft lips or one leg that is shorter than the other, or vasectomies, or getting your tubes tied, and so on and so forth. All of these are medical procedures with some risk that modify the bodies we are born with.

But according to you, all those people are mentally ill because they choose to or have to modify the body they are born with?

As a consenting adult, should I not be allowed to do what I want with my body? What right should you have to tell me in a society that respects individual freedom, if a surgery I choose is medically safe, whether I can have it or not?

Or is it just because you don't understand / mistrust / hate trans people?

And how do you explain that trans people have pretty much always existed in all societies where documentation exists, and in some such as ancient India they were respected and venerated? https://theculturetrip.com/asia/india/articles/a-brief-history-of-hijra-indias-third-gender/ Have humans (and ancient Indians even!), always been swayed by the wokes?

Colour is a great example you bring up, though it's actually the opposite of what you say.

Colour is not actually biological. If you study physics or some neurobilogy, there is no universal definition or reason that says XYZ on the electromagnetic spectrum is the colour green. Green or other colours are an entirely human-created and in many cases even cultural inventions: https://knowablemagazine.org/article/mind/2022/science-of-color-perception

And by some estimates, 8% of men are colour blind, and "India has the highest number of colorblind people population in the world with 70 million being colorblind": https://www.colorblindguide.com/post/colorblind-people-population-live-counter

That's a minority but it's just as representative of the variety in the human condition and species as many other differences, like skin or hair colour, sexual preferences, how many male or female sex hormones are produced, the expression of primary and secondary sexual characteristics, etc.

And when it comes to animals, you're way off: there are a huge number of animal species that are hermaphroditic, reproduce asexually, and more surprising still: https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/nature/article/2016/09/29/7-gender-bending-animals-animal-kingdom .

And if it were a biological impossibility or an anomaly as you imply, then there wouldn't be 0.02%–0.05% people born with "ambiguous genitals" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex . That's at least 120m people in the world. Those are 120m real people who do not fall into your 'if it has X genitals it is X sex' category, and it also ignores those who might be born with non-ambiguous genitals but may have hormonal levels that don't classically match up, or chromosomes that are non-standard, etc.

Also, your platypus lactation example is terrible. Human males can lactate, provided they have enough female sex hormones or under other circumstances: https://oddfeed.net/can-men-lactate/

Therefore, if you imply that biology has 'hard truths' like physics or mathematics, please study more biology: organisms built with DNA are enormously varied and complex.

Why all this talk about 'biological' truths and definitions and hard lines, what does the existence of intersex persons make of this hard line criteria? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex If biology were truly so black-and-white and all about X or Y chromosomes as is claimed, then why does biology still have so much variation and greys in genitals, chromosomes, appearances, etc?

And the other definition you give - the "ability to give birth" - doesn't quite work either, as that makes women who are infertile for various reasons, not "women".

Sure, it's a complicated and confusing issue with very strong opinions, but is there a need to muddy the debate with unequivocal statements of hard truths that are not?

Whereas efficiency has built only good things, like the pyramids, global warming and highly efficient death camps? :)

(oh, and equity has probably also bought you the right to freedom of speech protected in more equitable countries that lets you criticise equity freely :)

That's a good point, islamophobia often does not seem like the right and accurate word, as it often seems to be about hate or mistrust of Muslims. Functionally 'islamophobia' as it is often used, is no different from anti-semitism, racism or other forms of bigotry and intolerance isms. Any suggestions for better words?

Regarding your claim that Ambedkar's views of Muslims are accepted by a 'common layman', then ask yourself: by which common layman? An intolerant or bigoted common layman? An educated common layman? A Muslim common layman? A common layman in Kerala or in UP?

Then ask yourself, if it is a view accepted amongst some people, why is this so, if not also through a lifetime of political propaganda and intolerance passed down the generations? I.e., Islamophobia: fear your Muslim neighbour. And ask yourself whether such 'fear' and distrust of another community - often inflamed by religious or political leaders - has brought any positives to this country, or whether it's actually brought a lot of strife. And is insisting on and pandering to those differences between communities any different than the British strategy of 'divide and conquer'?

I'm not hopeful to actually get a response or convince anyone that their intolerance is just that or not, but know that it's easy to counter the common opinions espoused by the Islamophobic.

Thanks for sharing your views without ad hominem, even if your views are effectively islamophobic (even if you might not think so).

That might go for some Muslim religious leaders but many community leaders and followers are also 'progressive' and less strict. I'm sure you've met a Muslim who drinks alcohol or eats pork? By your yardstick then, would such a person not be more 'progressive' and adaptable than your interpretation of their religion would suggest? And would a Brahmin who clings to tradition and refuses to eat meat be 'regressive'?

But equally that will go for plenty of 'traditionalist' religious leaders of other religions, especially many Hindu ones some of whom nowadays especially seem to be becoming more regressive and violent, or brainwashing their followers for money or political power. Likewise many of the followers of both religions remain 'backward', as you call it, with many potentially 'regressive' practices like dowries, female infanticide, lynchings of other communities, cow 'protection', casteism, not allowing women into temples, you name it, without any signs of legislative reform or interest to. If you go far enough back in the scriptures of any religion, you're likely to find things that are not progressive. But that doesn't mean that a religion is not evolving.

But aren't all those not equally signs of 'backwardness' in any religion then, by your yardstick?

This is not whataboutery, but it should be a readily understood a fact that there is no inherent 'badness' or regressiveness in any religion, as you imply, nor is it helpful or will lead to a better society to demonise an entire community. India has a different predominant version of Islam from Turkey from Pakistan from Saudi from Iran, and in all those places the way the religion evolved and either became more or less regressive has been shaped by politics and powerplays.

If you try to paint all Muslims or an entire community as backward, then you ignore all the different ways a religion is practiced by people and their individual choices.

Thank you for posting. That comment really brought out the trolls and a spate of ad hominem, none of which will be published except this one which is indicative of much worse ad hominem / Islamphobia that was not published...

Lesson learnt: it's always good to provoke the trolls sometimes and make them justify what they argue, then wait - if they descend to ad hominem and show no interest in engaging, it proves they didn't have much of a point to start with. Prove me wrong :)

Ambedkar wrote in a tense political climate that resulted in countless deaths and partition. When you are proposing 'integrating Islam' into India, what exactly do you mean? And is this a view that tries to preserve plurality and freedom of religion or suppress it? What has Ambedkar's writing on this topic taught you on this that needs to be done, which is not unconstitutional and not islamophobic?

Thanks for sharing your experience, but surely the same experiences would also apply to a Muslim trying to live in a Hindu society in Mumbai (but often worse, in that they often wouldn't even be offered a flat). Same goes for Christian societies or Parsi societies, or Brahmin neighbourhoods in villages and so on. India was divided and conquered by the British just like that, why repeat and exacerbate those mistakes instead of trying to fix them?

Not an Ambedkar scholar but that selective quote certainly seemed like an oversimplification that is part of the historical landscape of the time.

If there is something in that book that you think is relevant for modern day politics and trying to run a pluralist society, please do share, happy to learn.

Surely most liberals don't defend Islam per se, and many do criticise islamic practices which don't mesh with their liberal worldview. What liberals object to is using such arguments as a fig leaf for islamophobia and discrimination.

This 'slow expansionim' you claim seems to be exactly that. How is Islam in India in the 21st century comparable to expansionism of the British empire, any more than modern-day Christians in India aren't expansionist because of the crusades or modern-day Hindus aren't responsible for imperialist Hindu emperors or conquerors. Most religions have expansionism in their books, and those that don't - even Buddhism - have had powerful misuse the scriptures to expand their power. That's simply history but it' says very little about culture.

FYI, we've just tried downvoting or upvoting some posts and on some it also seems to be stopping us from voting. The current algorithm we use to prevent double voting while retaining anonimity of votes might indeed be a bit too aggressive, hence the experience that seems to be had by some. We'll see if we can tweak it.

Maybe it's not widely taught because its a statement that vastly oversimplifies an entire religion, appears laden with prejudice and was written in a specific political and historical context. In a modern context it is obviously islamophobic and not helpful or educational in any practical way (unless you are pursuing an islamophobic agenda)?

The OP question also seems like a bit of a non-starter: in the US, just because some of the founding fathers had slaves or may have held racist views, doesn't mean such racist views should be studied uncritically nowadays, even if they have contributed other useful literature.

Or are you trying to 'cancel' Ambedkar or something, like some liberal woke type?

Yes, it can throw up a bit much right now, we need to improve the search...

One hacky option that can be useful is to try searching LI via an external search engine with the site:legallyindia.com/convos restriction, like this: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Alegallyindia.com%2Fconvos+gnlu

There are a few previous posts with GNLU reviews, here's one: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/231521-should-i-go-with-gnlu-or-prepare-again-with-college-also-a-small-review-about-gnlu-will-be-appreciated

Not agreeing: Tate bought women with money because he literally paid them money to operate an internet catfishing business scamming lonely guys out of their life savings. Plus he (allegedly) also trafficked women and moved to Romania because he thought laws are less strictly enforced there. All that says nothing about women, but it does confirm that you can hire or bribe people, of whichever gender, with money (which might also be Tate's point, since he obviously believes money is the most important thing in the world).