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.

 

[Gethelred]

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.

This sounds awfully like, "Oh, look what you made me do."

 

[Chief]

that many people who are actually opposed to a particular group of people still don’t actively wish harm on them

So I don't get it: what do those opposed actually want?

Removing rights and medical care harms the "particular group of people".

 

[Cap]

This sounds awfully like, "Oh, look what you made me do."

See this is the obviously reasonable point I was trying to make when calling people stupid

They made me do it.

 

[mcnulty]

This sounds awfully like, "Oh, look what you made me do."

That’s an incredibly trite response to a considered post.

 

[mcnulty]

Again the giggling dingbat…

 

[ShanDog]

So I don't get it: what do those opposed actually want?

Removing rights and medical care harms the "particular group of people".

Has any of this really hit Australia in a big way? Or is it mostly frothing over what happens in the culture wars of the USA?

 

[mcnulty]

So no reason for your posting? I mean other than calling me stupid

The reason for your posting? Other than to advocate violence. This is a ridiculous game you’re playing, and one you can never win, as you think people should be hit if they don’t agree with you. A point I’m happy to keep pointing out until you disown it.

But you can’t, can you?

 

[RookiePick]

Seeing as it's more than just belief, it's not difficult to accept.

I mean, the physical process of developing into male or female in the womb is pretty well documented. It's not hard to see where that process could go awry and a female is born with male physical characteristics and vice versa.

Why are we able to accept all sorts of physiological quirks (for want of a better phrase, I'm no medical guy) except this one?

Not sure the mod-squad would let anyone other than the Grand Poobah run with that angle.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

‘Kay.

I kinda think human rights are about a hell of a lot more than good manners.

They are, but you're forgetting just how massive the 'acceptance' aspect is in so many matters of societal inclusion/exclusion.

Imagine yourself having doubts about your identity and where you fit in society. All you want is a firm footing to stand on. How people react to you forms that firm ground. Your sense of self and sense of worth in the world at large may well crumble into the abyss or may find a grounding completely dependent on that reaction.

Common decency should be the oil that keeps our modern society moving and it's such a f*cking easy thing to put into action. That so many have a problem with such a concept .is utterly baffling to me.

 

[Gough]

I'd imagine all this debate has the same toxic effect on a closeted young trans person as AIDS did on young gay men in the 80s. You're still trying to work things all out in your own head and all around you you're hearing the most appalling hateful things said about what you are and debates about whether you should be allowed to exist at all. It must be absolutely crippling for these people right now.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Other than to advocate violence. This is a ridiculous game you’re playing, and one you can never win, as you think people should be hit if they don’t agree with you. A point I’m happy to keep pointing out until you disown it.

But you can’t, can you?

I'll put forward my point of view here. I believe in our common humanity. I believe in human decency. When groups come forward preaching societal exclusion, when groups come forward demanding human rights be withheld from certain groups or cultures then I believe that is an active denial of our common humanity.

That is a threat. Societal exclusion cannot live in harmony with a human rights-based society. I believe that such groups, by their thought and their action, are actively rejecting our common humanity.

To opt out themselves is fine. But to demand that we ALL must exclude and to sign human right denials into our laws? That I feel is an act of war against all that is decent and all that we should be aiming for as individuals, as communities, as societies and as nations.

Are you following me? I don't see human right denial as a difference of opinion. I see it as an act of war.

I'm willing to try anything to avert this war and I believe that opinion can be formed and reformed throughout a lifetime, but what happens when groups point blank reject the very concept of a common humanity? What happens when the decent see those opposed willing to use threats and violence to enforce societal exclusion?

At some point the tolerance of intolerance WILL lead to the death of tolerance if we, the decent, let it. Complacency will be our deaths, if we let it be so.

At some point we're going to need to ask ourselves one question. If we value universal human rights within a common humanity at what stage are we going to defend it from those opposed?

Sadly, I believe violence is inevitable.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'd imagine all this debate has the same toxic effect on a closeted young trans person as AIDS did on young gay men in the 80s. You're still trying to work things all out in your own head and all around you you're hearing the most appalling hateful things said about what you are and debates about whether you should be allowed to exist at all. It must be absolutely crippling for these people right now.

There are also positive examples that are in culture too - eg musical “and juilet” where the main love story involves a gender diverse character. So there is hope too (as well as the difficulties)

 

[CM86]

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.

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.

Thank you for replying. But you didn't answer my question.
I may not have phrased it correctly.


Calling someone the 'n-word' has a collection of aspects that we deem, legally and socially, wrong.

But through your lens, it can only mean anything, based on the 'feeling' someone has, that it's insulting.


I can't understand why you can logically reason all of the aspects as to why we reduce the ability for people to use the 'n-word'.
But you actively oppose those same aspects, when it comes to transgenderism.

You're free to think and believe whatever you like.
But you can't pretend that there isn't a powerful and active hate movement against this demographic, that is supported and grown, for over a decade, from the position of "Don't force your pronouns on me!".

 

[CM86]

By limitations, do you mean socially, or legally?

Either, both. You pick.

It doesn't engage with my question, it's just leading to a discussion on free-speech absolutism. And we'll end up agreeing that we both oppose it, but at different points.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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 ?

I don’t know. You’d have to ask them.

But as I said numerous times already, I suspect they’re not worked up about it at all, they’re just cynically triggering progressives. With dismayingly predictable results.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

So I don't get it: what do those opposed actually want?

Removing rights and medical care harms the "particular group of people".

I don’t know. Again, you’d have to ask them.

I’m making the case that opposition to trans rights takes many forms, and varies enormously in degree.

Viewing opponents as a murderous monolith does nothing to advance trans rights.

Do you deny that no small amount of opposition to trans rights comes from conservative religious communities who practise and preach peace and love, and have never called for anyone to be murdered?

I am an atheist and believe religion has done, and continues to do, great harm to the world, in amongst the good it has done.

But I can hardly see the benefit to improving the plight of trans people in telling peace-loving conservative religious practitioners that we think they are nazis who want to murder people.

Again with the Othering.

 

[Gough]

There are also positive examples that are in culture too - eg musical “and juilet” where the main love story involves a gender diverse character. So there is hope too (as well as the difficulties)

The rhetoric was so harmful to me I didn't feel Australia was a safe place to come out in in the 90s and legged it overseas.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This sounds awfully like, "Oh, look what you made me do."

I don’t agree at all.

And I don’t agree that “this is EXACTLY what (insert name of bogeyman du jour) says” is a particularly strong line of argument anyway.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

They are, but you're forgetting just how massive the 'acceptance' aspect is in so many matters of societal inclusion/exclusion.

Imagine yourself having doubts about your identity and where you fit in society. All you want is a firm footing to stand on. How people react to you forms that firm ground. Your sense of self and sense of worth in the world at large may well crumble into the abyss or may find a grounding completely dependent on that reaction.

Common decency should be the oil that keeps our modern society moving and it's such a f*cking easy thing to put into action. That so many have a problem with such a concept .is utterly baffling to me.

I am all for common decency and have never said one word against it. For example, I have chosen my words on here carefully and not insulted anyone, because I am aware of what a sensitive topic this is.

But although I agree common decency is a significant element of human rights, I think it does human rights a massive disservice to reduce them to mere common decency.

I hope that makes it clearer.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

But I can hardly see the benefit to improving the plight of trans people in telling peace-loving conservative religious practitioners that we think they are nazis who want to murder people.

I hardly see the benefit of religious groups who believe that their deity or deities have any jurisdiction over non-believers. Naturally this has a vice-versa in how much the secular world has jurisdiction over the religious but we all live in the WIDER WORLD. They and us. All the Others.

This is not some in-house housekeeping. This is us all.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

But you actively oppose those same aspects, when it comes to transgenderism.

And thank you for your considered reply.

No I don’t “actively oppose” giving trans people the respect they deserve. I think there’s an awful lot of conflating goes on in this thread.

*I have posed a hypothetical of someone being disinclined to give trans people the respect they request, in the course of suggesting that maybe, just maybe, a cartoon essentially saying anyone opposed to trans rights wants to kill trans people, may not be the best way to make the trans case.

*I have repeatedly stated the heresy that most people unfortunately probably don’t care very much about trans rights, because the topic has so little relevance to their daily lives. To say that seems to be almost unforgivable to some people on here, but it seems pretty much the truth in that place away from Big Footy’s SRP board called reality.

*I have stated that I believe this fixation on trans rights is to the detriment of the progressive cause, and may actually be providing an advantage to our opponents.

But you can't pretend that there isn't a powerful and active hate movement against this demographic, that is supported and grown, for over a decade, from the position of "Don't force your pronouns on me!".

I don’t.

I am calling for a sense of perspective, a sense of proportion, for a dose of Realpolitik to enter into progressive politics.

Please have a read of the Clive Hamilton LOL piece I linked a few posts back. He’s more articulate than me. And he is only saying what many progressives are saying.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I hardly see the benefit of religious groups who believe that their deity or deities have any jurisdiction over non-believers.

Me neither, as I already said.

But that is the reality of the world in which we are trying to effect change.

I suspect some on here (not you) are more interested in branding people nazis than actually doing anything about the world.

 

[Chief]

Do you deny that no small amount of opposition to trans rights comes from conservative religious communities who practise and preach peace and love, and have never called for anyone to be murdered?

These people are called hypocrites.

It's a small step from this to denying other people rights based on attributes they were born with.

Think about it.

Check out this bloke who is a Catholic and dined with the President, and hung around one of the biggest music artists in the world:



That's where this ends up. No doubt.

 

[Gethelred]

I don’t agree at all.

And I don’t agree that “this is EXACTLY what (insert name of bogeyman du jour) says” is a particularly strong line of argument anyway.

From time to time in this particular conversation your rhetoric has bordered on victim blaming, 'bogeyman du jour' be damned.

Let's reverse the conversation a bit. You have a trans person sitting in front of you, asking for your help in campaigning for trans rights. They themselves have suffered bigotry for being trans; they had to fight to obtain the ability to medically transition (let's say they're from the UK, as there's a decent example available) as an adult.

They are asking for your help. You want to make the same arguments you're making here. Go.

 

[ShanDog]

Either, both. You pick.

It doesn't engage with my question, it's just leading to a discussion on free-speech absolutism. And we'll end up agreeing that we both oppose it, but at different points.

Sounds about right.