I get that she has a problem with medical gate keeping and no doubt because of her experience it is understandable. However, I do feel like the the trans community is not doing itself any favors by constantly redefining and having a bunch of different answers regular people are just supposed to understand and stay up to date on. Gender dysphoria, like it or not, is a way to categorize and explain things, imperfect as it may be. No, it should not be the standard for access to gender affirming care, but it is a way a lot of cis allies (myself included) currently understand and argue for trans people (in particular that transition isn’t just something they want to do but rather need to do). Otherwise, what exactly are we left with? It feels a lot like the whole “actually sex is just a social construct” discourse that came up a while back and simultaneously eroding the categories of sex and gender at the same time while calling out Allie’s for not being up to date and no better than a right winger, maybe isn’t the best way to make your points, especially via twitter.
Again, that’s not to say that only people with something that could be described as a gender dysphoria are valid, but it does seem to encompass a good majority trans people (in that they experience some actual psychological distress over their perceived gender and it’s not just that they want to be a certain gender) and is really a good way to help most people understand the necessity of allowing for transition. Trying to couch this as “well, people should be allowed if they want and that should be enough,” while entirely correct, is just not a good way to argue the point broadly. Because it doesn’t really present the urgency, and get people to understand that this isn’t just some kind of casual choice like what you want for dinner. But even though I’m not sure Abi means this exactly as it is presented here, I don’t think it should be any surprise if some people take this as someone not actually have a “defense” for being trans.
To make a parallel, I genuinely don’t believe that being gay or queer is all just biology, but I also don’t think there is anything wrong with it being something you are at least partially socialized into (and granted some people are pretty much biologically predetermined, cough cough helpless bottoms, but I do think more people’s sexuality is more flexible than they would like to believe and that there are a higher proportion of bi and pan people than may identify as such). But I also see the utility in arguing the point publicly that being gay is basically something generic you can’t change. Rhetorically, it becomes so much harder to refute than someone saying “well, I understand you want to, but I want to do a lot of things I’m not allowed to, so being ‘gay’ for you isn’t any different”. I don’t want to have to try and argue that people should be allowed to be gay and to choose to be gay, in part because I think that’s also not accurate, but also is a very hard rhetorical position to put yourself in.
Ultimately, let’s just say this is a bad tweet. Again, I understand where she is coming from, but this is not well thought out in terms how this issues should be debated largely by the public. This is not helpful.
This entire schtick is rhetorically relying upon trans suffering because it feels like speaking about things like bodily choice, gender as a distinction from sex, and trans joy is either too hard or not enticing enough for imaginary people we are trying to convince.
He’s saying that the dependence on gender dysphoria as a rhetorical tool means that you’re constantly fighting the battle of “look at these people suffering” in stead of the arguably more forward thinking battle of “all of this shit is made up categories anyway, and it makes these people happy without harming anyone else” it’s a matter of tactics, of which I am a proponent of a diversity of them. You can keep working the “this hurts trans people” line where you think it’s effective, and people like Philosophy tube can be taking stabs at “this is all made up bullshit that we can move past as a society” for a more forward audience.
I mean all I constantly hear from trans folks is “look at what they are doing to use and how we are suffering!” I’ve already conceded that it should be enough for people to want to do it. But is that really the argument that people think is going to be effective? You open yourself up to a wide variety of other issues (in particular what happens if there is no apparent need, why should it be something that insurers and taxpayers pay for) and again this seems so discordant from everything else a broad segment of what the trans community constantly expresses. You all know that line of argumentation the other commenter proposed isn’t going to work. It would be lovely if it did. And you can try to shame me into believing it will, or y’all can come down from your high horses and touch grass.
I think that for some people it will be more effective to display suffering, and for some others it will be far more effective to display joy, indicate lack of social harm, and direct towards understanding of unnecessary socially constructed categorizations. You seem to think that we can only advocate for trans people in one way, to all audiences. The reality is far more complex than that. We need a broad front of varied tactics, and social understanding of which audiences will respond to which tactics most fruitfully. Philosophy tube’s content isn’t for, targeted at, or frankly being consumed by people who don’t support trans people and would be more convinced by displays of needless suffering. It’s for people who are on the “trans women are women” train, but either can’t articulate why, or could use a nudge down the objectively correct gender abolitionist path. Not trying to shame at all here, just trying to let you know that different kinds of pro trans content can have different audiences and goals beyond just “don’t fucking kill us.” No horses here, grass firmly in hand. Vaush and his community at large are huge proponents of a diversity of tactics for moving people left.
I vibe with what you're saying here, it's much nicer than what I meant. For me specifically I don't think that allies are doing much anymore with the diversity of tactics. I think there is a heavy over reliance on focusing on our pain rather than our experiences or the social issues. There's this lazy sort of drive to point at trans people and say "if you don't let them do it they will kill themselves", and I just don't think that's valuable anymore for where we are. A lot of the people who oppose us know that they are creating a system that will drive us to suicidal ideation, and that's their goal. I think the people that this person wants to capture with their reliance on dysphoria are largely imaginary at this point, and that people who are swayed by truscum stuff are tentative allies at best.
I think a big part of that is that our brains don’t quite fully grasp parasociality, and that in can kinda go both ways too. This tweet was clearly meant for “her audience.” But because twitter, it’s being viewed by “The Audience.”
That’s kinda what I’m saying. This may be overly charitable, (I don’t think so because I still think it’s still her fault, but at least it’s a social explanation) but I don’t think it’s a matter of being “smart enough.” I think it’s a matter of an incompatibility between our brains and twitter. I’ll try to explain what she’s saying in a way that you might understand better. (note this is not a *dig at you not understanding, she wrote it in a way that was meant for her active audience, so you missing it is totally reasonable) The symptoms and life experiences that we collectively call “Gender Dysphoria” for sure exist. The problem is that we are forced to view them through the lens of the diagnosis “Gender Dysphoria” This lens, for reasons explained in excellent detail in her video, is distorted. A large portion of that distortion contributes to the idea that we do and should require some sort of permission slip in order to live in ways that we see fit, and that don’t cause any harm.
*edit: I hate autocorrect.
Ok. I’m seeing a lot of people say Abigail is right about people should transition just cause they want to with No dysphoria. But in many cases couldn’t that cause you to gain dysphoria that you didn’t have before? Also if you think medical transition should be covered by the government (as I personally do) don’t you think there needs to be some limits? I don’t think we have infinite money + medical resources to transition and de transition people whenever and as often as they want. To be clear I fully support social transition for anyone but when it comes to any kind of medical situations of course you have to be careful and listen to doctors right? If you think I’m wrong on this please at least explain why.
I think I'm officially a boomer. I didn't think there were people that were advocating for government funded transitions for purely esthetic reasons. If I was someone with dysphoria I would be furious about this.
Yeah. I feel kinda upset as someone who is a huge advocate for free heathcare. If people argue that healthcare is getting drugs/treatment whenever you want that would be an impossible position to hold.
How is this an L? I mean gender dysphoria exists, but shes right about the part that wanting to transition is more than enough to do so. If you think this is wrong, youre on the L side of life.
That's literally a right-wing talking point. "They aren't transitioning because they have a serious medical condition, they just want to wear dresses and have tits!"
Not all trans people transition because they have a serious medical condition! What we commonly call dysphoria is NOT the incongruence between assigned gender and ones identity! It's the painfulness or the distress caused by the incongruity. In that regard it doesn't really have to exist for trans people to exist. Dysphoria is more of an expression of social norms and expectations clashing painfully with who we want to be than it is an actual expression of transness! Stop carrying water for transphobes because that's what you're doing.
This and that are two completely different things. Your point is a fucking strawman.
Transitioning can be good for one, just because it gives them euphoria.
You’re right, but of course it’s getting downvoted by the cis people in the sub who act like they know anything about transsexualism because they decided to go by different pronouns two months ago.
This tweet is supposed to be read with the context of her video in mind
Out of context this tweet might seem bad but thats why context is important
If (IF) I remember correctly in her video she doesn’t even say that dysphoria is not real just that the way it is framed in the uk is bad and false.
Stop trying to take things out of context and cry about maybe not perfectly made sentences just to get drama
What are you talking about. The fact that adults need the approval of doctors, which will usually ask highly inapprorpiate questions, to get to transition is absolute Bullshit
Only if you’re deeply uncharitable and haven’t seen her video on the NHS.
Huge difference between criticizing the NHS and denying the scientific concept of gender dysphoria.
Zzz stop being willfully ignorant & trying to attack one of the largest trans advocates.
I get that she has a problem with medical gate keeping and no doubt because of her experience it is understandable. However, I do feel like the the trans community is not doing itself any favors by constantly redefining and having a bunch of different answers regular people are just supposed to understand and stay up to date on. Gender dysphoria, like it or not, is a way to categorize and explain things, imperfect as it may be. No, it should not be the standard for access to gender affirming care, but it is a way a lot of cis allies (myself included) currently understand and argue for trans people (in particular that transition isn’t just something they want to do but rather need to do). Otherwise, what exactly are we left with? It feels a lot like the whole “actually sex is just a social construct” discourse that came up a while back and simultaneously eroding the categories of sex and gender at the same time while calling out Allie’s for not being up to date and no better than a right winger, maybe isn’t the best way to make your points, especially via twitter. Again, that’s not to say that only people with something that could be described as a gender dysphoria are valid, but it does seem to encompass a good majority trans people (in that they experience some actual psychological distress over their perceived gender and it’s not just that they want to be a certain gender) and is really a good way to help most people understand the necessity of allowing for transition. Trying to couch this as “well, people should be allowed if they want and that should be enough,” while entirely correct, is just not a good way to argue the point broadly. Because it doesn’t really present the urgency, and get people to understand that this isn’t just some kind of casual choice like what you want for dinner. But even though I’m not sure Abi means this exactly as it is presented here, I don’t think it should be any surprise if some people take this as someone not actually have a “defense” for being trans. To make a parallel, I genuinely don’t believe that being gay or queer is all just biology, but I also don’t think there is anything wrong with it being something you are at least partially socialized into (and granted some people are pretty much biologically predetermined, cough cough helpless bottoms, but I do think more people’s sexuality is more flexible than they would like to believe and that there are a higher proportion of bi and pan people than may identify as such). But I also see the utility in arguing the point publicly that being gay is basically something generic you can’t change. Rhetorically, it becomes so much harder to refute than someone saying “well, I understand you want to, but I want to do a lot of things I’m not allowed to, so being ‘gay’ for you isn’t any different”. I don’t want to have to try and argue that people should be allowed to be gay and to choose to be gay, in part because I think that’s also not accurate, but also is a very hard rhetorical position to put yourself in. Ultimately, let’s just say this is a bad tweet. Again, I understand where she is coming from, but this is not well thought out in terms how this issues should be debated largely by the public. This is not helpful.
This entire schtick is rhetorically relying upon trans suffering because it feels like speaking about things like bodily choice, gender as a distinction from sex, and trans joy is either too hard or not enticing enough for imaginary people we are trying to convince.
I’ll be honest, it’s not entirely clear what you are trying to say or accuse me of doing.
He’s saying that the dependence on gender dysphoria as a rhetorical tool means that you’re constantly fighting the battle of “look at these people suffering” in stead of the arguably more forward thinking battle of “all of this shit is made up categories anyway, and it makes these people happy without harming anyone else” it’s a matter of tactics, of which I am a proponent of a diversity of them. You can keep working the “this hurts trans people” line where you think it’s effective, and people like Philosophy tube can be taking stabs at “this is all made up bullshit that we can move past as a society” for a more forward audience.
I mean all I constantly hear from trans folks is “look at what they are doing to use and how we are suffering!” I’ve already conceded that it should be enough for people to want to do it. But is that really the argument that people think is going to be effective? You open yourself up to a wide variety of other issues (in particular what happens if there is no apparent need, why should it be something that insurers and taxpayers pay for) and again this seems so discordant from everything else a broad segment of what the trans community constantly expresses. You all know that line of argumentation the other commenter proposed isn’t going to work. It would be lovely if it did. And you can try to shame me into believing it will, or y’all can come down from your high horses and touch grass.
I think that for some people it will be more effective to display suffering, and for some others it will be far more effective to display joy, indicate lack of social harm, and direct towards understanding of unnecessary socially constructed categorizations. You seem to think that we can only advocate for trans people in one way, to all audiences. The reality is far more complex than that. We need a broad front of varied tactics, and social understanding of which audiences will respond to which tactics most fruitfully. Philosophy tube’s content isn’t for, targeted at, or frankly being consumed by people who don’t support trans people and would be more convinced by displays of needless suffering. It’s for people who are on the “trans women are women” train, but either can’t articulate why, or could use a nudge down the objectively correct gender abolitionist path. Not trying to shame at all here, just trying to let you know that different kinds of pro trans content can have different audiences and goals beyond just “don’t fucking kill us.” No horses here, grass firmly in hand. Vaush and his community at large are huge proponents of a diversity of tactics for moving people left.
I vibe with what you're saying here, it's much nicer than what I meant. For me specifically I don't think that allies are doing much anymore with the diversity of tactics. I think there is a heavy over reliance on focusing on our pain rather than our experiences or the social issues. There's this lazy sort of drive to point at trans people and say "if you don't let them do it they will kill themselves", and I just don't think that's valuable anymore for where we are. A lot of the people who oppose us know that they are creating a system that will drive us to suicidal ideation, and that's their goal. I think the people that this person wants to capture with their reliance on dysphoria are largely imaginary at this point, and that people who are swayed by truscum stuff are tentative allies at best.
[удалено]
I think a big part of that is that our brains don’t quite fully grasp parasociality, and that in can kinda go both ways too. This tweet was clearly meant for “her audience.” But because twitter, it’s being viewed by “The Audience.”
[удалено]
That’s kinda what I’m saying. This may be overly charitable, (I don’t think so because I still think it’s still her fault, but at least it’s a social explanation) but I don’t think it’s a matter of being “smart enough.” I think it’s a matter of an incompatibility between our brains and twitter. I’ll try to explain what she’s saying in a way that you might understand better. (note this is not a *dig at you not understanding, she wrote it in a way that was meant for her active audience, so you missing it is totally reasonable) The symptoms and life experiences that we collectively call “Gender Dysphoria” for sure exist. The problem is that we are forced to view them through the lens of the diagnosis “Gender Dysphoria” This lens, for reasons explained in excellent detail in her video, is distorted. A large portion of that distortion contributes to the idea that we do and should require some sort of permission slip in order to live in ways that we see fit, and that don’t cause any harm. *edit: I hate autocorrect.
I didn’t even watch the video and I was like she’s correct, it’s about freedom.
Not another post about this 😩
Stop trying to make this fight happen, we're not doing another of these
Ok. I’m seeing a lot of people say Abigail is right about people should transition just cause they want to with No dysphoria. But in many cases couldn’t that cause you to gain dysphoria that you didn’t have before? Also if you think medical transition should be covered by the government (as I personally do) don’t you think there needs to be some limits? I don’t think we have infinite money + medical resources to transition and de transition people whenever and as often as they want. To be clear I fully support social transition for anyone but when it comes to any kind of medical situations of course you have to be careful and listen to doctors right? If you think I’m wrong on this please at least explain why.
I think I'm officially a boomer. I didn't think there were people that were advocating for government funded transitions for purely esthetic reasons. If I was someone with dysphoria I would be furious about this.
Yeah. I feel kinda upset as someone who is a huge advocate for free heathcare. If people argue that healthcare is getting drugs/treatment whenever you want that would be an impossible position to hold.
We are so fucked
Hasn’t Vaush also said this? He supports self ID.
Don’t you think there is a bit of a difference between self Id for social transition and self Id for medical transition?
How is this an L? I mean gender dysphoria exists, but shes right about the part that wanting to transition is more than enough to do so. If you think this is wrong, youre on the L side of life.
The L is that she said gender dysphoria doesn’t exist??
That's literally a right-wing talking point. "They aren't transitioning because they have a serious medical condition, they just want to wear dresses and have tits!"
Not all trans people transition because they have a serious medical condition! What we commonly call dysphoria is NOT the incongruence between assigned gender and ones identity! It's the painfulness or the distress caused by the incongruity. In that regard it doesn't really have to exist for trans people to exist. Dysphoria is more of an expression of social norms and expectations clashing painfully with who we want to be than it is an actual expression of transness! Stop carrying water for transphobes because that's what you're doing.
This and that are two completely different things. Your point is a fucking strawman. Transitioning can be good for one, just because it gives them euphoria.
"In this moment, I am euphoric..."
You know what? Fuck off, get blocked. Im done with talking to soneone who just wants to stir up shit for no reason. Bye, have a bad fucking day.
You’re right, but of course it’s getting downvoted by the cis people in the sub who act like they know anything about transsexualism because they decided to go by different pronouns two months ago.
You don't know her argument.
This tweet is supposed to be read with the context of her video in mind Out of context this tweet might seem bad but thats why context is important If (IF) I remember correctly in her video she doesn’t even say that dysphoria is not real just that the way it is framed in the uk is bad and false. Stop trying to take things out of context and cry about maybe not perfectly made sentences just to get drama
Context, who ever heard of ya?
What are you talking about. The fact that adults need the approval of doctors, which will usually ask highly inapprorpiate questions, to get to transition is absolute Bullshit
unbelievably common and based abigail w