Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

So you support trans rights, just not enough to actually support them.

You'd rather advocate for people to ignore the problem.

But you think that shouldn't be part of the discussion?

Define “support”.

For example, I’m sure YOU “support” the people of the Baha’i faith who are so brutally oppressed by the Iranian regime.

But I don’t see much comment on from you about that, if any.

And, here’s the thing- you don’t see much comment about it from me either.

Because, like you presumably, I SUPPORT them, but they don’t figure much in my life at all. Heck, I know the sum total of two Iranians. My doctor, and a neighbourhood shopkeeper.

Funnily enough, I know a total of two trans people. (I used to know three, but as I mentioned a few pages back, one has decided she’s not trans now that she’s been diagnosed mildly autistic and is now very comfortable in her own skin.)

My contention (which you pointedly avoid addressing time after time) is that my position is quite likely the same as the majority: Most people don’t care very much about trans rights. Not out of malice, simply because it’s of very little relevance in their lives. Sorry, but I think it’s the truth.

So why am I on here then? (because I KNOW that’ll be your next tack.)

Because I am a progressive, I care deeply about a number of issues, and I see this issue taking all the oxygen from them. Because too many progressives are shit-scared to say what they know to be the truth: “oppression of trans people is a terrible thing, and we will do everything we can for trans rights, but it is simply not a first-order issue”.

Sheesh, everyone on here acts like I’m saying something radical. Clive Hamilton is just the latest progressive to say pretty much exactly what I’m saying. He’s hardly Mark Latham, and he’s hardly the first to say it, and he certainly won’t be the last:

Wake up, lefties, and reject wokeness

Fear of being publicly shamed, bullied, cancelled or even fired is stifling sincere dialogue – and there’s nothing left-wing about that.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Gralin]

Omg Clive Hamilton lol

 

[mcnulty]

If you think it's all about peaceful protest you haven't paid attention to any history.

More stupidity from you. I’m well aware history is littered with violent protest. But once again, who decides who get bashed here? It’s a question you seem afraid to answer. You said TERFs should get assaulted, who decides who is TERF? Or do you just bash people who disagree with you?

A second question would be what good you think that will do, but you seem awfully reluctant to address the first, so my hopes aren’t high.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You could say this about literally anything though. It's the "kids starving in Africa" argument lol

And it’s unfortunately the reality.

Don’t try to tell me you don’t practise compassion triage. Everyone does.

And what’s more, my point is twofold. This fixation on the rights of a tiny minority is not just diverting scarce progressive resources and energy.

It’s playing right into the RWNJ hands.

I hazard a guess they can scarcely conceal their smirks.

 

[Gralin]

You're certainly a certain type of progressive SBD Gonzalez

What you're saying is you're willing to throw trans people to the wolves for other issues that are more important to you.

That's fine, just own it.

KJk is a single issue activist, her single issue is destroying trans people.

Her reasoning is they are a danger to women and children.

Of course because she is a single issue activist, she's sold out and continues to sell out women and children to get to her goal of destroying trans people.

Abortion rights? Not important enough.
Child brides? Not important enough.
Working with conviction pedophiles? Fine if they are against trans people.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Omg Clive Hamilton lol

OMG Gralin lol.

 

[Gralin]

More stupidity from you. I’m well aware history is littered with violent protest. But once again, who decides who get bashed here? It’s a question you seem afraid to answer. You said TERFs should get assaulted, who decides who is TERF? Or do you just bash people who disagree with you?

A second question would be what good you think that will do, but seem awfully reluctant to address the first , so my hopes aren’t high.

You keep calling me stupid but you seem to not be able to work out that I've already answered your questions.

Funny that, might be one of the reasons I keep laughing at your posts.

OMG Gralin lol.

I'm hilarious, Clive is just a racist old dickhead

The fact you missed the transphobia in that article....

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You're certainly a certain type of progressive @Gralin

What you're saying is you're willing to throw Baha’i people to the wolves for other issues that are more important to you.

That's fine, just own it.
.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Gralin]

Fixed it for you.

Lol ok we're done. Enjoy your night

 

[mcnulty]

You keep calling me stupid but you seem to not be able to work out that I've already answered your questions.

No you haven’t. Again, who decides who is a TERF, and therefore deserving of assault? I can only infer from your silence you are very unsure of yourself here.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I'm hilarious, Clive is just a racist old dickhead

The fact you missed the transphobia in that article....

LOL do you not see the irony of replying like that to an article like that?

BTW “old” is ageist.

Do you denounce ageism or not? I’m starting to suspect you couldn’t give a shit about ageism.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Lol ok we're done.

Yea you’re right. I will continue to post on this topic whenever the mood takes me but I will ignore anything you post.

 

[Gralin]

LOL do you not see the irony of replying like that to an article like that?

BTW “old” is ageist.

Do you denounce ageism or not? I’m starting to suspect you couldn’t give a s**t about ageism.

Sorry should I have said he was a racist septuagenarian dickhead?

 

[Gralin]

No you haven’t. Again, who decides who is a TERF, and therefore deserving of assault? I can only infer from your silence you are very unsure of yourself here.

No I'm just not interested in your slippery slope bullshit.

I said I'm fine with people who are being oppressed fighting back.

I didn't say I was going around punching people I thought were TERFs.

That's your answer. You can either work out what that means or you can't.

Either way I'm not wasting any more time on it

 

[mcnulty]

No I'm just not interested in your slippery slope bullshit.

I said I'm fine with people who are being oppressed fighting back.

I didn't say I was going around punching people I thought were TERFs.

That's your answer. You can either work out what that means or you can't.

Either way I'm not wasting any more time on it

You are really struggling here. No slippery slope. You said TERFs deserved to get punched in the face.

If you truly believe that, then you would imagine you would need to be extremely specific about who are actually TERFs. You can’t actually rationalise this, let alone why they should be assaulted.

Instead of walking back your ridiculous statement, look at the hole you’ve dug for yourself.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

How often do you actually use pronouns to refer to someone? I mostly just use their name. It’s a pretty minor inconvenience really, we're just used to the luxury of not having to ask, unlike a name, where we do have to ask

Sure. As I have already said several times, I was posing a hypothetical. Some people on here seem blissfully ignorant of how standard it is in philosophy, or ethics, to use hypotheticals.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I don't understand. Nobody's trying to take away your rights to call people whatever you want to call them. Or for you to ask others to call you your preferred pronouns.

Not everyone is going to be called them/they. If you want to be called by different pronouns than the ones people are using, just let them know.

Not sure what the problem is.

I didn’t say there is a problem. I am trying to pick apart the currents that drive this trend.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

What you seem to be saying however is that there's an onus, or fault, on trans people for making a simple request about pronouns. I just don't agree that they should have to make that concession because people are ignorant or have malice towards trans people. Notwithstanding, that if after having it explained, if you still object to using preferred pronouns, then you are a) making a child-like decision to revolt against basic social respect because it's your right, or b) you actually object to the validity of the request and thus the validity of someone being trans.

No, I'm not saying trans people should make any concessions whatsoever, except to acknowledge the reality that they are a tiny minority and may not be able to assume the majority is automatically in lockstep with them.

What have you done today about the plight of vulnerable tribal groups of India? Presumably the same as me. Nothing.

I am not saying I would refuse to use particular pronouns if requested by trans people. I'm saying that given the massive disparity of non-trans compared to trans people, some people might think it a bit presumptuous, and are certainly in their rights to not bother.

As for how to educate people, it's via the education system introducing students to the idea that trans people exist and that they aren't to be feared. That it's ok to be trans. Similarly, media and news have a role in the way they present and platform trans people. The more people get exposed to and familiar with something, get to see positive representations, the less they fear it. This also goes for immigration, gay people etc. At a personal level, you just have to do the best you can in explaining the concepts, make analogies people can understand, try to elicit empathy even in the absence of personal experience.

Yep, I totally agree with every word.

I also suspect it will take 200 years, and meanwhile the planet will be uninhabitable.

Some will refuse to accept it, but I don't think that means their views have to be respected or immune from criticism just because there's lots of those people.

I suspect a lot will, um - not so much refuse to accept it - but simply look the other way.

I disagree their views don't have to be respected.

And I don't think they should be immune from criticism, and haven't suggested that.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

IDK It seems fairly obvious to me that if you are informed, but think preferred pronouns are over the top or silly or actually bad, then there is part of you that doesn't accept trans people being trans.

Yeah probably.

Like I said, we're all morally flawed.

Even the people on here so vehemently supporting trans rights with every sinew of their keypads.

Nothing in real life is as black and white as people on here are assuming.

Trouble is, those people instantly interpret that fact as some sort of veiled attack on trans rights.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Do you believe that everyone should have the right to call a 'black' person, the 'n-word'? (In places that 'black people' are a minority).
Because 'free-speech' is a human right, and insults are just a matter of manners.

No I don't. Someone else raised this, and I said while I think psychological issues and mental health issues should always be treated with sensitivity and compassion, there is a difference between being aggrieved by being discriminated against for what you are, compared to something that you perceive you are.

Trans people should never be discriminated against. But Person A can never be inside Person B's head and it has to be understood that even with the best motives, gross misunderstandings will therefore inevitably occur.

Or do you accept that there are limitations on free-speech, in order to create a more inclusive society?
For example, intentionally and repeatedly calling someone by their incorrect pronouns.

Yes, I do agree.

And no, I don't agree that people should intentionally and repeatedly call someone by their "incorrect" pronouns. But they have every right to not be particularly interested in the whole question, and I suspect most people aren't.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I dunno. I'm doing other things at the same time and I've lost the thread of what you mean by "the question".

The "question" I'm referring to is whether or not it was reasonable to illustrate the contention that "one side wants to be themselves, the other wants to deny them that" with a cartoon that depicts KKK members holding up a placard saying "we want to kill black people".

I would suggest firstly that not everyone who is not 100% on board with trans rights wants actively to deny trans people the right to be themselves. And secondly, even if someone is obnoxiously trying to deny someone the right to be themselves, there is still a huge difference between that and expressing a desire to kill people.

Stating baldly that there are some very nasty attitudes being expressed by some very nasty people is reductive.

 

[Chief]

The "question" I'm referring to is whether or not it was reasonable to illustrate the contention that "one side wants to be themselves, the other wants to deny them that" with a cartoon that depicts KKK members holding up a placard saying "we want to kill black people".

Well what do they want?

You've got a hard core of people moving to the centre of the TERF movement who have said they want trans people to die.

You've got people at the centre of the fashionably fashy right saying trans people are a problem to be ended. Backed by billionaires.

We all joked about Trump becoming US president. It happened. People got hurt - violence against minorities increased. People lost rights - abortion and other medical care restrictions will kill people. It's happening right now in the US. We have a small and growing group of people in parliament the like of which we would never have imagined 20 years ago.

I would suggest firstly that not everyone who is not 100% on board with trans rights wants actively to deny trans people the right to be themselves.

What do they want then?

And secondly, even if someone is obnoxiously trying to deny someone the right to be themselves, there is still a huge difference between that and expressing a desire to kill people.

The crazies in parliament are appealing to people who are now thinking stuff like: well obviously I don't want to KILL trans people, but I am OK with denying them care that would otherwise avert a number of suicides or consign many to a life of depression, alienation, and other mental health and social issues.

So the cartoon is apt.

 

[mcnulty]

We all joked about Trump becoming US president. It happened. People got hurt - violence against minorities increased. People lost rights - abortion and other medical care restrictions will kill people. It's happening right now in the US. We have a small and growing group of people in parliament the like of which we would never have imagined 20 years ago

So why is this happening?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Well what do they want?

You've got a hard core of people moving to the centre of the TERF movement who have said they want trans people to die.

You've got people at the centre of the fashionably fashy right saying trans people are a problem to be ended. Backed by billionaires.

We all joked about Trump becoming US president. It happened. People got hurt - violence against minorities increased. People lost rights - abortion and other medical care restrictions will kill people. It's happening right now in the US. We have a small and growing group of people in parliament the like of which we would never have imagined 20 years ago.




What do they want then?


The crazies in parliament are appealing to people who are now thinking stuff like: well obviously I don't want to KILL trans people, but I am OK with denying them care that would otherwise avert a number of suicides or consign many to a life of depression, alienation, and other mental health and social issues.

So the cartoon is apt.

I’m suggesting most people don’t care much about trans issues, but certainly wish no harm on trans people; that many people who are actually opposed to a particular group of people still don’t actively wish harm on them; and that most of the people who actually are hostile to any other group of people still aren’t usually proposing that they murder them.

The rise of very nasty right wing groups is of great concern. Using that cartoon to supposedly illustrate the entire range of people who are opposed to trans rights, when many of those people are, for example, peaceful, non-violent members of a socially conservative religion, is hardly any better than saying all Muslims are terrorists.

 

[Cap]

No I don't. Someone else raised this, and I said while I think psychological issues and mental health issues should always be treated with sensitivity and compassion, there is a difference between being aggrieved by being discriminated against for what you are, compared to something that you perceive you are.

For such a tiny minority they certainly get the bigots worked up.

Why are they worked up about something that is such a small issue ?