Transphobia

[Audie]

You would crush their dreams of becoming a gutter oil collector?

I don't need a link to know about recycling cooking oil!

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't need a link to know about recycling cooking oil!

Others here might not be familiar with the culinary art of skimming grease of off sewage.

 

[Kfox]

Missing the point again.

When someone calls something a phobia, one implication is that they consider the thing irrational. Yes, this is subjective.

So if rational responses are not called phobic, why is it when a straight man refuses to date a trans woman, he is called phobic? For a straight man to refuse to date another biological man sounds perfectly rational to me! So why is it called trans phobic?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if rational responses are not called phobic, why is it when a straight man refuses to date a trans woman, he is called phobic? For a straight man to refuse to date another biological man sounds perfectly rational to me! So why is it called trans phobic?

Because the person calling it transphobic disagrees with you. Please try to keep up.

 

[Callisto]

See, this argument doesn't really sit well with me, because you can literally use this argument about anything.

Arguments about what a community should or should not address within its ranks is something that often holds true of all communities.

For instance, a non-zero number of gay men are paedophiles. That is a thing we can say, quite justifiably

HOWEVER

When people make the argument "Allowing gay men to work with children will make those children vulnerable to paedophiles", would you say that is an accurate statement?

You are literally misunderstanding what I said. To use your own example, if someone says "Allowing gay men to work with children will make those children vulnerable to pedophiles" that is literally on par with what I said about intolerance: "If someone claims all (gay men are paedo), that would be intolerance." Though, your example is a poor one realistically as most male pedophiles are not gay. If someone made the claim, it would be very easy to not only dismantle that claim but, by rights, suggest letting children be around straight men is a greater hazard. Bonus points if the person making the claim is a straight male.

It's not an issue of people denying that there ARE "bad actors" among the group, i

Trans activists act as though the community is entirely made of saints and any time concerns are raised then people are told they're phobic and need to be canceled. What is an example of the trans community denouncing questionable behavior or individuals claiming to be part of the trans community? This is the same question that could be put to any community.

t's the IMPLICATION given by the statement that the group poses a DISTINCT THREAT GREATER THAN THAT OF OTHER GROUPS by an innate quality of who they are that is the issue. Again, the statement "some gay people are paedophiles and therefore allowing gay people to work with children will expose them to paedophiles" is not a novel statement - it's taking a rule that applies to literally all groups and demographics and only SELECTIVELY applying it to one group in order to IMPLY that group poses a unique risk.

No, it doesn't. As I stated, any community that does not address bad actors and unacceptable behavior head-on and without first being criticized by outsiders is not doing itself any favors. The Catholic Church protecting pedophiles is a sobering example of that.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that there aren't dangers, or that there aren't instances in which children have been brought to inappropriate drag shows. It's that these instances are not novel to these particular groups, and are often brought up not to highlight individual bad behaviour but to create an impression that ALL BEHAVIOUR within that group poses a risk.

Every defense I've seen about drag shows ignores that there have been some bad situations. Can you provide links to where LGBTQ+ organizations have issued statements denouncing bad actors? Unfortunately, as the saying goes, "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch". As with any community, even when the bad actors are a minority, they gain the most attention and reflect badly on the community as a whole. They hurt the majority of people who simply trying to live their lives. This is, again, why it's necessary for a community - especially a marginalized group - to get ahead of any controversy before detractors can use it against them. But people like Eli Erlick and Jeffrey Marsh seem to be plowing ahead unimpeded. If you have news to the contrary, I genuinely welcome it.

Btw, I'll repeat what I said in another thread a few weeks ago: the wrong people are being criticized regards DQSH, it shouldn't be trans community or drag queens specifically. Blame the parents. Hash it out at PTA meetings or a town hall, hold each other accountable. Children aren't driving themselves to these events, their parents bring them there and then let them stay. Any organization can plan an event, it won't happen if people don't attend.

To use your argument, are there some drag queens who are registered sex offenders and some drag shows that are inappropriate for children? Definitely, yes. But the argument isn't whether these things are the case but whether these things are sufficient that "drag shows", as a category, should be called out as uniquely harmful.

This is something that is CONSTANTLY happening with the trans and drag debate.

"Allowing trans people to use gendered bathrooms poses a threat to women."
"Allowing trans women into women's sports will literally be the death of women's sports."
"Drag shows are inappropriate for children."

These claims are made CONSTANTLY and with no regard for nuance, or differentiation or exceptions. They're not made in good faith to raise genuine concerns - they're used to create an impression that trans people and drag queens pose an INNATE threat, as a category. The framing isn't there to encourage real discussion of actual concern, it's scare-mongering.

We can have lots of healthy discussions about how to ensure broadening access to women's spaces doesn't increase risks to women, or about what categorisations or specifications would have to exist within sports to ensure equality within male and female competition if trans people wish to compete, or about whether or not certain drag shows are appropriate or inappropriate for children. These would be productive conversations. And yet, they rarely, if ever, seem to occur, because the people making the above claims very rarely want to talk about them. They only want to bar trans women from bathrooms, or sports, or outlaw drag shows.

Again, you seem to have either missed or ignored what I've stated and have now reiterated. I don't know how else to get the point across.

Edited typos

 

[Callisto]

@Callisto
Well, the general rule is that humans are dangerous, therefore no adult should be allowed near children. In effect to protect the children no adults should be allowed near children. So you are dangerous, because you are an adult and we have to keep you away from children.
And that includes parents and other family. And reductio ad absurdum, you are in all likelihood a criminal for breaking the rule and should get life.

Again, point was missed. smh

 

[wellwisher]

If there there is any phobia connected to the trans movement, it is connected to adults leading children down a rabbit hole instead of allowing the children to lead themselves. When I was young, I was part of the hippy and love generation movement. This was about the young people leading their own generation. The slogan was do not trust anyone over 30. It was not being led by political activists and propagandist adult teachers with a Lefty political agenda, trying to undermine parents, like today. This raises a red flag. It reminds me of the Nazi youth of WW2 Germany, where children were hijacked by smiling demon adults making promises that were designed to manipulate.

It is illegal for adults to have sex with minors. The reason is, adults can use any number of tactics and tricks to take advantage of naive young people. Teachers have extra tools like good grades for manipulation games. When you have adults; teachers, pushing a self mutilation fad onto minors, you know there is a problem not much different than a teacher trying to rape a child under the guise of helping them.

It is more natural for children to want to rebel against the older generation, and find their own place as future adults. It is not like this generation of adults is doing the best job. This movement is not that. Rather it is more like children being stolen from their parents by con artists adults and then made dependents on another set of adults. This may be the new Lefty recruiting strategy; create a different dependency.

Young people need to wake up and find their own way, for your own generation. Soon you will need to be the leaders and not perpetual followers of shady people with questionable character or no character at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The person I was having a conversation with described gender as a societal aspect attached to biology but not dependent on biology. I concluded this was basically a stereotype applied to males and females, that’s why I brought it up. But such stereotypes is not something I go along with,

Well, yes, we all have psychological schemata, except you off course. I get that. That is how some debates with you are in effect the absurd exercise of you are in effect objective, where everybody else is subjective.

 

[Kfox]

Because the person calling it transphobic disagrees with you. Please try to keep up.

IMO the problem with using “phobia” this way, it’s used as a weapon. There are 2 ways phobia is used; the first (and original) way was to describe something meant to garner sympathy, the other is used to garner hatred. Nobody is going to criticize someone for being afraid of heights, or closed spaces; someone claustrophobic will not be criticized for being afraid of closed spaces, but the person accused of being homo, trans, islamic, xenophobic, this type of phobia is used as a weapon, a cudgel, a pejorative against the person accused of it, and as you pointed out; this accusation is completely subjective. My problem is also the term is not used consistently; it’s like the powers that be select which people it can be used against, and which ones it cannot. An example is religion. Islam and Christianity are both religions, yet Islamophobia is a term used among by activists, media, academia, basically the powers that be to garner hatred against those critical of islam, but you will never hear christian phobia used this way against those critical of Christianity, even though there are plenty of people critical of Christianity. And I say this as an Atheist who doesn’t even have a dog in the fight concerning religious issues; I just notice the different in how one is treated by the powers that be compared to the other.
Unfortunately this is a very effective weapon of garnering hatred because many people for fear of being labeled this type of phobia will cower and silence their critical viewpoints because they don't want that phobic club used against them. But still there are others who will fight the accusation hence the debates like this one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMO the problem with using “phobia” this way, it’s used as a weapon. There are 2 ways phobia is used; the first (and original) way was to describe something meant to garner sympathy, the other is used to garner hatred. Nobody is going to criticize someone for being afraid of heights, or closed spaces; someone claustrophobic will not be criticized for being afraid of closed spaces, but the person accused of being homo, trans, islamic, xenophobic, this type of phobia is used as a weapon, a cudgel, a pejorative against the person accused of it, and as you pointed out; this accusation is completely subjective. My problem is also the term is not used consistently; it’s like the powers that be select which people it can be used against, and which ones it cannot. An example is religion. Islam and Christianity are both religions, yet Islamophobia is a term used among by activists, media, academia, basically the powers that be to garner hatred against those critical of islam, but you will never hear christian phobia used this way against those critical of Christianity, even though there are plenty of people critical of Christianity. And I say this as an Atheist who doesn’t even have a dog in the fight concerning religious issues; I just notice the different in how one is treated by the powers that be compared to the other.
Unfortunately this is a very effective weapon of garnering hatred because many people for fear of being labeled this type of phobia will cower and silence their critical viewpoints because they don't want that phobic club used against them. But still there are others who will fight the accusation hence the debates like this one.

Yes, that is a part of it. But not all of it.
There is 3 positions.
It is nothing but wrong to claim phobia.
It is always true.
It is a bit more complex that just off or on.

So filter out the noise and try to figure your own bias both in favor of or against.

 

[Kfox]

Well, yes, we all have psychological schemata, except you off course. I get that. That is how some debates with you are in effect the absurd exercise of you are in effect objective, where everybody else is subjective.

It's almost like of all the conversations we've had, you still have no clue of what I've been telling you. Like Jordan Peterson said; you are not only wrong, but anti-right!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's almost like of all the conversations we've had, you still have no clue of what I've been telling you. Like Jordan Peterson said; you are not only wrong, but anti-right!

No, I am for a limited version of truth. But only limited.
I have never seen evidence for any human being right or wrong. That is culture. I can do objective truth, evidence and/or proof, if you like, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't work on the subjective as it works on the objective.

 

[Kfox]

Yes, that is a part of it. But not all of it.

What did I leave out?

There is 3 positions.

What’s the 3rd use of the term?

It is nothing but wrong to claim phobia.

That type of phobia is not something people claim, it’s something used as a pejorative against you

It is always true.

What is always true?

It is a bit more complex that just off or on.

On or off? What does that mean

So filter out the noise and try to figure your own bias both in favor of or against.

I just told you why I have a problem with the term.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I just told you why I have a problem with the term.

Yeah, how you have a problem with the term. That is true for you, but different for me.
I don't have a problem with the term, because I treat it differently depending on context. And you do that differently. That is all. That is true as a case of different contexts for you and I.
Now if that means that to you, I am wrong, okay. But if you claim you have evidence that I am wrong and it is not just an opinion of yours bring it on.

 

[Kfox]

No, I am for a limited version of truth. But only limited.

Aren't we all?

I have never seen evidence for any human being right or wrong.

Perhaps you should pay attention

That is culture. I can do objective truth, evidence and/or proof, if you like, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't work on the subjective as it works on the objective.

There are objective truths, and there are subjective truths; you just need to know the difference.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Perhaps you should pay attention

...

So give the objective evidence that I am wrong.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, how you have a problem with the term. That is true for you, but different for me.
I don't have a problem with the term, because I treat it differently depending on context. And you do that differently. That is all. That is true as a case of different contexts for you and I.
Now if that means that to you, I am wrong, okay. But if you claim you have evidence that I am wrong and it is not just an opinion of yours bring it on.

If you will notice, when I mentioned my disagreement of how the term is used, I mentioned how it is used by the media, academia, activists, and the powers that be. Nowhere did I mention how you use the term.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you will notice, when I mentioned my disagreement of how the term is used, I mentioned how it is used by the media, academia, activists, and the powers that be. Nowhere did I mention how you use the term.

Well, I am a woke social justice warrior when it comes to being wrong, so bring it on. I am for the tribe of the abnormal in effect as you use it.

 

[Kfox]

So give the objective evidence that I am wrong.

You said you never saw evidence of a person being right or wrong. The first time my brother took the engine apart on his car then put it back together again; he had a bunch of parts left over and needless to say, the motor did not work. Why? Because he put it together wrong. Anyone witnessing a kid doing a math quiz or spelling bee will see a bunch of right answers and wrong answers. I could mention more, but I think you get the point.

 

[Kfox]

Well, I am a woke social justice warrior when it comes to being wrong, so bring it on. I am for the tribe of the abnormal in effect as you use it.

Do you use the term phobic as a means of garnering hatred against those who disagree with you on specific political issues?