Jump to content

LGBTQ+ 6 -- It's a Rainbow of Flavors


Xray the Enforcer
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And shift the public discourse on what positions are acceptable and/or mainstream.

That is the nature of politics. You want to shift them, they want to shift them, everyone wants to shift them. But I think a negative approach for one's side is exaggerating what the other side is presently doing by forecasting their ultimate goal. The right does this all the time, and everyone calls it nonsense, so maybe the left shouldn't indulge in the same behavior. It turns off people whose minds are not made up to feel like they're being scare-mongered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ran said:

That is the nature of politics. You want to shift them, they want to shift them, everyone wants to shift them. But I think a negative approach for one's side is exaggerating what the other side is presently doing by forecasting their ultimate goal. The right does this all the time, and everyone calls it nonsense, so maybe the left shouldn't indulge in the same behavior. It turns off people whose minds are not made up to feel like they're being scare-mongered.

Agreed, and I'll go one step further.

I stated this up-thread, but I think an important part of intellectual humility is being able to state your opponents' position in a way they would recognize, without strawmanning. While it is viscerally satisfying to assume we know The Truth and we are thereby justified in preaching it to others, it's not effective. I don't know anyone who responds well to the attitude, "I must reveal to you why you are wrong and I am right."

That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage people in dialogue--in fact, that's why we have dialogue. However, anyone who starts from a place of utter moral certainty is not truly interested in discussion.

Edited by TrackerNeil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does one find a neutral ground with those who deny religiously and legally the humanity of entire groups of people, as is being done, legally and religiously, throughout the US, as in Florida and Texas?  Come on folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ran said:

That is the nature of politics. You want to shift them, they want to shift them, everyone wants to shift them. But I think a negative approach for one's side is exaggerating what the other side is presently doing by forecasting their ultimate goal.

If conservatives passed a bill or proposed a bill to up the age of consent for same-sex activity from 16 to 90, it would not be an exaggeration to say that would effectively criminalize homosexuality in general

You hyperfixate on the pedantic details. No the anti-drag bill doesn’t say drag, and only lists ‘entertainers’ as not being allowed to present as a different gender identity from their birth in a performance. The inevitably of the bill if allowed  would be the erasure of trans and gnc in general in any public or even private setting where kids are involved because anyone can be labeled as an entertainer at a given time and the people who’re responsible for such bills  make it very clear they see trans people and gnc as equivalent to public masturebators.

 

Constantly reacting to reactionaries when they’re good and ready to escalate their rhetoric isn’t a good political strategy. I know I keep harping but so many people on the don’t say gay bill insisted on noting “It doesn’t explicitly say you can’t talk about gay people and is only meant 1-3 graders really anyway” until republicans inoculated the public enough to not be so alarmed for when they explicitly expanded it from 1-12 grade—though they predictably treated any discussion or book positive towards the lgbt as inappropriate for any age group and thus not allowed under the law in a school. 
 

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

stated this up-thread, but I think an important part of intellectual humility is being able to state your opponents' position in a way they would recognize, without strawmanning.

Great, I totally agree.

it’s not a strawman to say most terfs want an end to all transitioning because they see it as butchery of the mentally ill and misogyny(which the state and businesses shouldn’t tolerate or enforce).

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

While it is viscerally satisfying to assume we know The Truth

So did you check out the Twitter thread I linked you discussing how a terf group in private was fully candid on wanting to expand banning of transitioning  to adults despite their messaging in public?

Did you simply ignore that as you did the article from the times fearmongering about adults in their 30s transitioning after years of therapy? 

Did you ignore that as you did my question on how you feel about when people say Nick Fuentes hates Jews when he has professed to loving everyone.  Hell some even call him a nazi when he has stated openly and repeatedly he is not a nazi as he is a proud Christian. Will you condemn those people as thinking they can read minds and be consistent?
There’s a difference between being ‘humble’ about the limits your ability to gleam the intent and goals of others, being willfully obtuse, and genuinely blind to the obvious.

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know anyone who responds well to the attitude, "I must reveal to you why you are wrong and I am right."

Oh that’s fair. Though Public Debate isn’t usually for the benefit of the individual interlocutors directly involved it’s for the audience. 
 

 

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage people in dialogue--in fact, that's why we have dialogue. However, anyone who starts from a place of utter moral certainty is not truly interested in discussion.

Eh could be true.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

because anyone can be labeled as an entertainer at a given time

You need to stop inventing nonsense. Performances and entertainers are already defined by law in Ohio. An attempt to call anyone an entertainer who is not in fact an entertainer will go nowhere because it's not supported by the law.

I like how discussing facts is hyperfixation on details with you. You are a purveyor of truthiness on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criminalized medical support and medications has no neutral ground.  It is not only anti-trans, it is denying people to be who they are by criminalizing.  THAT IS ANTI-TRANS and no fancy dance language saying it does not SAY THAT, doesn't change that.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ran said:

You need to stop inventing nonsense. Performances and entertainers are already defined by law in Ohio.

Quote

(3) "Professional entertainer" means a person who performs services in the professional performing arts for wages or other remuneration on a per-event basis.

 

I admit to being no legal expert but to a layman I do see a bit wiggle room—especially in mass organizations with financial backing like pride parades and expulsion from a lot of industry especially ones where queer people are likely to congregate to.  
 

Edit—I should acknowledge the current laws with the addition of these bill  would however make say a trans woman reading a bed time story to her child while presenting in a way that’s most comfortable to her not a feasible however. This would do a lot to erase trans and gnc people from public life but not a complete erasure if left unchecked.

I also must acknowledge that putting the immediate vile actions and ramifications of something in some instances-can be critical as to avoid pessimism and apathy, and self-censorship.

So far for instance public universities in Florida aren’t explicitly banned from ‘instructing’ on lgbt issues. Do I think that’ll be the inevitable next step? Of course it will, but until then I’d implore teachers to try and their their best to jam as much pro-lgbt stuff they can before they’re actually legally threatened.

I also must acknowledge how these more extreme bills often are just thrown out to distract from milder sounding and more easily legally defensible transphobic bills.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

An attempt to call anyone an entertainer who is not in fact an entertainer will go nowhere because it's not supported by the law.

Hopefully so.

Hopefully the worst thing this bill would do is shift public discourse towards being more accepting  the idea of full criminalization of gnc and trans people. Like theatre.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

like how discussing facts is hyperfixation on details with you.

Hyper-fixation on ‘Pedantic’ details.

I think there’s a difference

2 hours ago, Ran said:

like how discussing facts is hyperfixation on details with you. You are a purveyor of truthiness on this forum.

I will not subscribe to NYT again. Though I caught a few words and think I get the jest.
 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Elaboration a list of acknowledgments to help show a willingness to listen and have productive discourse*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2023 at 7:47 AM, Derfel Cadarn said:

They’re trying to ban *adult* entertainment featuring men and women dressed up as the gender they weren’t assigned at birth?

Wait until they see that most traditional of UK children’s entertainment, the pantomime…

Men playing women, women playing men, a male actor/character dialling the camp up to max, lots of sexual innuendo…

And this is for young children every Christmas! And hasn’t done any harm.

Well that is debatable. How else does one explain the Tory party?

Edited by maarsen
Joking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m inclined to think democrats would support it because they’re scared their opposition calling them groomers. So the lgbtq community get shunted under the bus for some poor understanding of Real Politik(if we go along with the right’s culture wars in its least offending sounding acts maybe they’ll like us and we could get power). They’ll still be called pedophiles and some the demographics most sympathetic to the democrats have even more reason to be apathetic  or hostile to the party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-61605588

Hmm this seems at odds with many terfs and other reactionaries hysterics on how blaise transitioning is now-a days.

I think the main takeaway from that story is that there was an enormous increase in demand. 
 

It might be something to do with this:

‘An explosion’: what is behind the rise in girls questioning their gender identity?

Quote

Earlier this year, a team of NHS researchers was asked to investigate why there has been such a huge rise in the number of adolescent biological girls seeking referrals to gender clinics.

The figures alone do seem remarkable.

According to a study commissioned by NHS England, 10 years ago there were just under 250 referrals, most of them boys, to the Gender Identity Development Service (Gids), run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation trust in London.

Last year, there were more than 5,000, which was twice the number in the previous year. And the largest group, about two-thirds, now consisted of “birth-registered females first presenting in adolescence with gender-related distress”, the report said.

And

Quote

Like all NHS employees interviewed, she asked for anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject.

“I might have seen one child with gender dysphoria once every two years when I started practising. It was very niche and rare.” Now, somewhere between 10% and 20% of her caseload is made up of adolescents registered as female at birth who identify as non-binary or trans, with just an occasional male-registered teenager who identifies as trans.

Another senior child psychiatrist said girls who wanted to transition made up about 5% of her caseload.

“In the last five to 10 years we’ve seen a huge surge in young women who, at the age of around 12 or 13, want to become boys. They’ve changed their name and they are pressing … to have hormones or puberty blockers”

 

Edited by Heartofice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Can you actually fuck off with spreading rapid onset gender dysphoria conspiracies in this thread? The world looked to be getting better for us, so more of us took the risk of being ourselves. It's as simple as that.

If you can point to something which is a conspiracy theory rather than the basic facts I posted then please go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Can you actually fuck off with spreading rapid onset gender dysphoria conspiracies in this thread? The world looked to be getting better for us, so more of us took the risk of being ourselves. It's as simple as that.

Can't it be true that a) trans people exist; and b) some people who think they are trans really aren't? It's certainly been true for gay people--LUGS, anyone? Or guys who were bisexual for ten minutes?

I have heard the argument you make before, often compared to left-handedness. Where the comparison fails, I think, is when the population of kids claiming a trans identity flips from mostly male to mostly female, as I believe has the case in recent years. (Hannah Barnes covers this in Time to Think, which I recommend.) That's not to say that any specific person claiming that identity is lying or deluded, but that shift is certainly worth investigating. Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take identity claims seriously, but there's context to be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Can't it be true that a) trans people exist; and b) some people who think they are trans really aren't? It's certainly been true for gay people--LUGS, anyone? Or guys who were bisexual for ten minutes?

I have heard the argument you make before, often compared to left-handedness. Where the comparison fails, I think, is when the population of kids claiming a trans identity flips from mostly male to mostly female, as I believe has the case in recent years. (Hannah Barnes covers this in Time to Think, which I recommend.) That's not to say that any specific person claiming that identity is lying or deluded, but that shift is certainly worth investigating. Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take identity claims seriously, but there's context to be considered.

First part - yes, there is a tiny number of people that detransition. Their numbers are exaggerated, and how much weight they should be given in the process compared to all the people that are harmed by inability to access medical care is overblown by people with an agenda that does not include the well being of trans people. A single cis person incorrectly receiving treatment is treated as so bad that 100 trans people should go without.

And a good amount of people that detransition do so because their life goes to shit due to stigma against trans people, which isn't exactly a slam dunk against us.

This is an incredibly complex, politically fraught issue and improvements in one area can lead to temporary imbalance in the number of people seeking treatment, but on the whole the number of trans men and trans women is roughly equal.

None of the above has any valid relationship to bullshit social contagion theory being posted in a thread that bans discussion like that. So I say again, fuck off with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

Can't it be true that a) trans people exist; and b) some people who think they are trans really aren't? It's certainly been true for gay people--LUGS, anyone? Or guys who were bisexual for ten minutes?

Yes, and those cases are rare, the actual cases of a person detransitioning because they come to the conclusion they’re cis are also rare(less than one percent of people transition  actual fall into the category terfs aand reactionaries fearmonger about) 

 

Also I do suspect you didn’t use ‘girls’ because you realize how bad that sounds. I suspect this because the common stereotype for bisexual women is that they’re straight trying to seem unique, and the stereotype for gay men is that they’re gay and in denial.

I admit I could be wrong and if I am I apologize. If I’m not then…

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I have heard the argument you make before, often compared to left-handedness. Where the comparison fails, I think, is when the population of kids claiming a trans identity flips from mostly male to mostly female, as I believe has the case in recent years.


Even taken that as is have you considered the fact literally nearly all the vitriol concerning trans people has been centered around  trans women and trans girls being massive raping brutes eager to assault and prey on women and society tends to allow a greater degree of gender non-conformity to people they perceive as girls and women in some cases as just a phase?

 

Also quick Google case shows men also tend to be left-handed than women.

 

8 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

That's not to say that any specific person claiming that identity is lying or deluded, but that shift is certainly worth investigating.

The shift is less than one percent of the population identifying as trans.
Twice as many gay guys as there are gay women within the US. Hey wanna hear out those good old conservative theories on gay men being due to not having an adequate male figure to emulate and society demonizing heterosexuality and social contagion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

A single cis person incorrectly receiving treatment is treated as so bad that 100 trans people should go without.

True. Again Theres 32 year old detransitoned man who started transitioning when he was 25 being treated as a horror story by the British tabloids and prominent terfs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...