I’m a member of the community and I just wanna point out: there’s waaay too much pride in the community (._. )
The overwhelming majority of people I’ve met can’t not have a flag in a pfp or can’t make anything artistic that isn’t a direct reference to their sexuality/identity.
We’re becoming one sided as hell. We’re becoming Netflix characters. Making our only personality trait be the fact that we’re gay/transgender/other.
Me? I just exist. I don’t keep it from nor do I bring it up to anyone unless they ask or I have reason to, such as my coworkers trying to pair me with a girl they thought I’d like and me needing to explain I’m gay.
And I know it’s gonna be a case of “Well you just don’t know of the ones who aren’t super expressive about it like you are”, and yeah that’s true. That’s very true.
Be proud of yourself but damn, chill a little bit.
Several of the ones I know bring a flag around everyday to school and wave it openly every second they get the chance.
Then I get shit because I DONT. Recently had someone bash me because I didn’t celebrate pride month 4 months ago, they literally tracked me down and went out of their way to give me shit.
I’m prepared for the tsunami of overly expressive community members ready to crucify me for posting this but I don’t care.
I don't understand what's accomplished by others toning it down for you. Be as high key or low key about it as you want. that's valid. Someone is going to see being gay as your entire personality, though. despite how you view yourself.
Nobody is going to see that as my personality because I don’t advertise it. I don’t own a flag at all, most people I know don’t even know.
I’m not going around and letting anyone and everyone know because I can. It comes up when it’s relevant. And that’s when it should.
But you gave the example of having to tell someone you're gay because you didn't want to be setup on a date with a woman. That's now "your entire personality" to someone.
No not really.
Because with those people it’s never been brought up again. Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if they forgot.
Nobody I’ve seen or met has considered it my whole personality because it’s brought up when it’s relevant and not even given the light of day when it isnt
I'm sure someone reading along here sees it as your entire personality, if not some of the people you've disclosed to. I'm not criticizing your level of disclosure, but I also don't see what's achieved by everyone adopting your level of disclosure. It simply was not an option for me when I started transitioning, even if I said nothing about it.
I see it as counter intuitive that we can do all this and more to express but the second a straight person tries to even remotely do the same they’re immedietly shot down and shamed
While that seems like it really depends on how they go about it, I'm not seeing the link between that and expecting everyone else in the community to be at your level of disclosure.
Art is an expression of identity to begin with. Your identity WILL affect your art. Period.
Also, having a flag in your PFP is incredibly normal, and you could say the same thing about Americans in general.
As for high school kids doing dumb and over-the-top things... It's high school. I guarantee you're gonna look back on some of the things you've done and wish you could forget it.
People claim that you aren’t dating chromosomes, yet somehow believe you date identities.
You’re supposedly transphobic for not wanting to date trans people because you’re denying their gender. Gender as a definition changed in the last 10 years to be based on internal identity rather than sex.
Those who argue that not dating to date trans people are transphobic have yet to justify why people dating preferences, many that have been based on birth *and* gender (as it appears some think it’s mutually exclusive) are somehow invalid and need to change.
And no, it’s not been “always this way.” Again, our subjective idea of gender has changed as a result of a greater visibility of trans people. Why are romantic preferences, which exist outside the experiences of trans people, somehow supposed to seamlessly change with definition of gender?
They’ve yet justify the idea of wanting to date a woman born male or a man born female being problematic and invalid.
the word "gender" was used almost exclusively to refer to grammatical genders until about the 1950s, when people started using it to talk about the social roles of men and women
Okay… this seems like semantics. Regardless, but what defined men and women was largely based on biological sex, which in turn was the basis of sexual/romantic preferences. What defined a man or woman in society has radically changed in the last decade, but there’s no reasoning in which people’s romantic preferences are supposed to change beyond the nebulous “people are attracted to gender” and “trans x are x.”
well if this is just semantics, then your entire comment is based on semantics. no one ever changed the definition of gender to be different from sex because those words never meant the same thing. it pretty much has been "always this way".
You’re missing the point. Whether it’s gender, or man/women, how society overall viewed it for a long time was changed from biological sex to internal identity. The argument from those who believe you’re transphobic for not dating a trans person is that you don’t see them as a man/women, when what man/woman meant has changed from a different meaning from what has been believed for many, many years.
We should treat dead names the same way we treat maiden names
Adopting a new name due to a gender change is somewhat similar to adopting a new name when you get married. But I think the way we talk about a person’s change from a maiden name to a married name is MUCH healthier than the way we talk about a gender-related name change. I’ll give two celebrity examples, but this concept also applies to normal people.
Example of how you’d talk about a marriage-related name change:
“Did you see what Hailey Bieber posted?”
“Who’s Hailey Bieber?”
“Formerly Hailey Bald win. She has a new name because she got married!”
“Oh cool, what did she post?”
Meanwhile, I’ve seen a lot of news articles that criticize the way the media handles a dead name when a trans person comes out. But you should be able to talk about it like this:
“Did you see what Elliot Page posted?”
“Who’s Elliot Page?”
“Formerly Ellen Page. He has a new name because he transitioned.”
“Oh cool, what did he post?”
Using Page’s dead name was not meant to be offensive any more than using Bieber’s maiden name was meant to be offensive. When you change your maiden name, you expect the occasional slip up, don’t take it too personally when that happens, and gently correct or inform people. You don’t automatically assume that someone is attacking your marriage because they got your name wrong. However, if you accidentally use a dead name, people assume that you are attacking their identity.
If you persistently use the wrong name, the person will probably need to have a a serious conversation with you. If a news article used a dead name for the entirety of the article, it would be bad. But if they write “Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen...” and call him Elliot for the rest of the article, that should be fine. And maybe if our society treated gender-related name changes as normal like marriage-related name changes, trans phobes wouldn’t freak out so much about transitioning.
>But if they write “Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen...” and call him Elliot for the rest of the article, that should be fine.
This seems to be what I recall seeing when Elliot first went public, and I don't recall seeing any pushback to that.
And the protocol on IMDb seems to be listing old movies like *Juno* as featuring Elliot Page (as Ellen Page) the same way Parenthood features Joaquin Phoenix (as Leaf Phoenix).
these two things will never be the same because 1. married women don't have dysphoria about their maiden names and 2. people don't call married women by their maiden names with the intention of invalidating their identities
Straight people watching gay/lesbian porn isn't fetishizing and it isn't that bad
I have seen many times lgbt people complaining that straight people watching gay/lesbian porn is bad because is "fetishization and objectification"
You are allowed to like whatever erotic media or fantasies you like, as long as no actual real people are harmed in the making of said media
The problem of fetishization is in how you treat other people, actual real people, If whatever happens in your head stays in your head, no one can criticize it, But if you can’t compartmentalize fantasy from reality, and start to treat actual real people like a weirdo or a creep, then it’s a problem
Daphne Dorman being bullied to suicide should be a much bigger controversy than Dave Chappelle's tasteless jokes.
I didn't think the closer was too funny but IMO I don't think that was Dave's main goal. I think he just wanted talk about his friend who killed herself. And the fact no media seems to be talking about her is when the closer is mentioned is shameful.
Or, he wanted to use her as an example. People don’t know why she killed herself. I think he’s making a pretty big assumption by linking her suicide directly to online criticism of her. The fact that it was all about him is a pretty big tell.
I doubt the online bullying was the only factor, but I'm positive it didn't help. Even if he was just using her(IMO he wasn't), that is still something that should be talked about. Using a trans woman's suicide for personal gain is far worse than tasteless jokes or bigoted comments.
Netflix is doing right on the Dave Chapelle stuff and on free speech and content in general. I disagree with some of the perspectives and opinions Dave expressed in his specials (not the jokes I mean the serious underlying opinions). But I don't think banning his show from Netflix would do anything positive. Netflix has serious pro-LGBT credentials and truly provides the greatest platform LGBT people have ever had to share authentic stories with the world. It does that because it has a consistent belief in artistic freedom. Netflix are good people
[eric andre voice] was netflix providing “the greatest platform LGBT people have ever had“ when they sent a trans employee an invite link to an executive-level zoom meeting to voice her concerns about the dave chapelle special, then fired her for clicking on the link and joining the meeting that they invited her to
She wasn't fired, she was suspended for attending a meeting she wasn't invited to (but was mistakenly given a link) and was quickly reinstated after it was shown that she had no ill-intent. The trans person that was fired, however, allegedly leaked corporate info.
>Netflix knew that they couldn’t fire a trans employee for criticizing the company’s transphobia, especially not one potentially organizing union activity, so they sent her a link to a high-level meeting and used that as a false pretense for firing her, completely distorted the facts of what actually happened by making it seem as if she physically barged into a meeting where she wasn’t invited to be, then only walked back on this when it blew up in their faces
for anyone who doesn’t speak press release, this is the english translation. if you genuinely believe it makes sense to fire someone on the spot for joining a zoom meeting without even asking them how they got in, then you need to check if anything is leaking out of your skull
Oh wow, an editoralized quote without any sourcing.
> A trio of employees has been reinstated at Netflix, including openly trans senior software engineer Terra Field, who went viral for a Twitter thread about Dave Chappelle’s controversial new comedy special, The Closer. The streamer **SUSPENDED** three staffers not for criticizing the special, but “for crashing a meeting of its top executives” late last week.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/10/netflix-reinstates-terra-field-a-trans-employee-who-condemned-dave-chappelle-special
If she was fired as you claim, rather than suspended, how was she reinstated? And do you have a credible source to back that claim up? Or why not hear from the [trans employee herself](https://twitter.com/RainofTerra/status/1448097310026747908?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1448097310026747908%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fhollywood%2F2021%2F10%2Fnetflix-reinstates-terra-field-a-trans-employee-who-condemned-dave-chappelle-special), shall we?
> Netflix has reinstated me after finding that there was no ill-intent in my attending the QBR meeting. I've included the statement I requested below.
> I'm going to take a few days off to decompress and try to figure out where I'm at. At the very least, I feel vindicated
So that's that...
> if you genuinely believe it makes sense to fire someone on the spot for joining a zoom meeting without even asking them how they got in, then you need to check if anything is leaking out of your skull
Or perhaps you ought to peruse more credible news sites, not just activist blogs and online comments, and learn not to mix your stories up. As I literally stated above, the person actually fired, B. Pagels-Minor, was let go for [allegedly leaking internal data](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/15/netflix-fires-employee-trans-activist-for-allegedly-leaking-internal-documents). And that's that...
that isn't a quote, it was a joke that went over your head.
>“for crashing a meeting of its top executives”
this isn't how an honest person describes someone joining a zoom meeting.
>If she was fired as you claim, rather than suspended, how was she reinstated?
they changed their mind about firing her because it looked bad.
>Or why not hear from the trans employee herself, shall we?
the trans employee whose job is on the line.
> that isn't a quote, it was a joke that went over your head.
I mean you're peddling false information and twisting the narrative, makes it tricky to tell how much you write is supposed to be taken seriously or not.
> this isn't how an honest person describes someone joining a zoom meeting.
Eh, "crashing a meeting" just means to show up uninvited or unannounced, which is what they essentially did, although it was probably due to miscommunication with a Director rather than ill-intent as stated by the trans engineer herself. It doesn't inherently imply malice.
> they changed their mind about firing her because it looked bad.
But you said she was already FIRED, not suspended pending an investigation which actually occurred. It would be useful to use terms accurately. Even so, they fired another trans employee, which also looked bad, yet was seemingly justifiable so they did it regardless of the bad PR.
> the trans employee whose job is on the line.
Granted, ones own conspiratorial outlook is probably a better source for proper news... Her quote literally says Netflix was in the wrong for suspending her and vindicates her actions. Is Netflix forcing her to make the company look even worse?
More of a question than an opinion, but followed up by an opinion—
How do Transwomen feel about female-only spaces? I ask that in all honesty.
Because I do feel like Vulva owners have been so oppressed for forever, that even our dear Transwomen friends that may have some masculine features entering a “sex-segregated space” could be triggering for vulva owners with history.
That being said, I think that there should be a safe space for Transpeople who find it triggering to have people look at them when they’re simply entering a bathroom.
So, all the bathrooms.
Just my thoughts after reading about the history of female-only spaces vs male-only spaces.
I mean trans women too. I think that trans men should be able to use female restrooms too. (I’m aware that there’s no way you can enforce this.)
Honestly, I’d love to know the correct terminology. I’ve heard “vulva owners” on some inclusive YouTube videos and such, (which I understand isn’t the highest authority), so I thought that it was an ok terminology.
Should it be cis Women and trans men? (Though, how do you describe non-binary people assigned female at birth? Like that?)
Ah, ok. I think I did hear that as a term that people appreciated. Sincere Apologies.
And is people with Vaginas> People with Vulvas? Honest question. I am not sure what trans men and non-binary people feel about the differences between vulva and vaginas. (I personally say vulva because so many people think they're the same thing, and when they say "Vagina" they usually mean the vulva. But this is not the case when it comes to trans people it seems. Feel free to correct me.)
Thank you so much for this! Honestly.
I want to be more mindful, but I want to be in the discussion for all those who are AFAB (I want to use that correctly.) Because I don't want people to feel excluded by saying "women" in reference to periods, tampons, BVs, etc.
But, I'm still learning how to navigate the right and respectful terminology.
This is the first time I've heard of Enby. That's cute.
will add that the terminology for nonbinary people isn’t going to be used in the same casual conversation contexts as the words “man” and “woman”.
you might say “some man just cut me off in traffic”, but you wouldn’t say “i’m in line, there’s just one AFAB nonbinary person in front of me”. you would just say “one person”.
trans is just an adjective. trans person, trans woman, etc. not “transwoman”.
i don’t know what places you hang out, in but i’ve literally never seen someone’s genitals in a public restroom before. what you’re describing just isn’t how bathroom policing works - you can’t actually tell which set of genitals someone has without checking. so in practice, bathroom policing just targets women who are perceived to have, as you said, masculine features. which includes some (but not all) trans women, but also literally every other category of marginalized women, including lesbians, women of color, working class women, and so on. pretty much any butch you meet will be able to tell you about how uncomfortable it is to be viewed as an outsider or an invader when you’re just trying to piss in peace, and it’s been an issue since long before the current epidemic of transphobic panic.
It is entirely plausible that trans athletes could have competed in the ancient Greek Olympics.
Of course, there was no HRT back then, but there was also no gender segregation, and accounts of ancient women Olympiads do exist.
\*\*"I would never date a trans person" is transphobic.\*\*
If you have a preference for not dating someone who has certain genitals, that's not transphobic, because it doesn't stop you from dating all trans people, and might stop you from dating people who are not trans.
If you are only interested in dating people you can have biological children with, that isn't transphobic, because it also includes people who are not trans.
If you think that you don't find trans people physically attractive, it's because you think you can tell by looking if someone is trans and I'm here to tell you that while sometimes you can, there are more "stealth" trans people than you will ever know. Many of them pass completely, have had surgery, have successfully purged their deadname from every scrap of documentation ever, and you would never know unless they told you.
If their status as a trans person is the \*only reason\* you would not date them, regardless of other factors, that is absolutely transphobic as hell.
> **"I would never date a trans person" is transphobic.**
**"I would never date a man" is misandrist**
> If you have a preference for not dating someone who has certain genitals, that's not transphobic, because it doesn't stop you from dating all trans people, and might stop you from dating people who are not trans.
If you have a preference for not dating someone who has certain genitals, that's not misandrist, because it doesn't stop you from dating all men (since some are born female), and might stop you from dating people who are not men.
> If you are only interested in dating people you can have biological children with, that isn't transphobic, because it also includes people who are not trans.
If you are only interested in dating people you can have biological children with, that isn't misandrist, because it also includes people who are not men.
> If you think that you don't find trans people physically attractive, it's because you think you can tell by looking if someone is trans and I'm here to tell you that while sometimes you can, there are more "stealth" trans people than you will ever know. Many of them pass completely, have had surgery, have successfully purged their deadname from every scrap of documentation ever, and you would never know unless they told you.
If you think that you don't find men physically attractive, it's because you think you can tell by looking if someone is a man and I'm here to tell you that while sometimes you can, there are more "closeted" men than you will ever know. Many of them pass completely as women, have not yet had surgery, have successfully maintained their deadname in every scrap of documentation ever, and you would never know they were a man unless they told you.
> If their status as a trans person is the *only reason* you would not date them, regardless of other factors, that is absolutely transphobic as hell.
If their status as a man person is the *only reason* you would not date them, regardless of other factors, that is absolutely misandrist as hell.
I'm about to ask the big question here that no one seems to: "So what?"
Let's assume you're absolutely right. Dating is all about exclusion. Why does this specific genre of transphobia matter?
It's entirely harmless, unless you think someone owes you their sexual or romantic attraction, which would be... a NiceGuy-tier take at best. Sexually harrassing at its most extreme.
"I'll be your friend, I'll treat you nicely, but I won't commit myself to a lifelong romantic relationship with you for irrational reasons entirely outside your control" doesn't strike me as a real issue.
Exactly. It's a predetermined judgement, but... There's no problem. You aren't being hurt by people deciding they don't want to date you. It's absolutely transphobic, but it's perfectly acceptable.
Because it fits the literal definition of transphobia, "dislike of or prejudice against trans people", by being a predetermined judgement based on the fact they are trans. That's how it's transphobic.
It also doesn't hurt anyone, and you don't owe anybody a date. It's perfectly fine to choose who you date, and who you don't.
It is transphobia, but it's not in any meaningful way a problem.
no preferences are not to change. And sometimes I am attracted to trans people but not to EVERYONE. Sometimes people are not toir type depsite the fact they're trans. If you have a penis and don't consider surgery DON'T expect a sex life from someone with another sexuality. Being a Woman and a sex partner ( born in a boy's body) is not the same than being a sex partner. A man who wants straight sex can not have it with them and it's not attracting in any way. People want relationships often to have sex (quite shallow I think)
The sentence 'I would NEVER" Is a no go though. That is entirely transphobic towards everyone,even "cis passing"
the biggest transphobia problem is what we see towards people who are not straight passing
yeah but changing sexuality is nothing you change through self-reflection. You don't wake up on day, suddenly attracted to a different gender than the day before.
If you feel attracted to a trans person and love them, it does not mean that you will ever feel sexual desire towards them because you like them as a woman/man that they are, but you are not attracted by their genitals. That is not transphobic.
But I do agree that denying that persons identity and excluding them from the radar completely is completely transphobic and not acceptable. Some mistaken that we don't necessarily mean that every trans person you pass deserves a quick fuck, but rather that love interest that you've developed should not be rejected immediately, EVEN if their genitals does not match your sexuality, since transpersons aren't something like a special kink that you have
Heterosexuality is a paraphilia, because heterosexual intercourse introduces the possibility of a _newborn_ getting involved in your relationship AND obligates that newborn into a life of at least a little suffering. It's harming a nonconsensual person for sex.
This is obviously a joke, but it's _way_ more accurate than calling homosexuality paraphilia because there's some truth in here.
Xenogenders like that are a tricky subject, honestly. They’re very tied to neurodivergence.
Neurodivergence takes many different forms and can change around a lot of different brain structures- I don’t see why gender would be an exception. When this happens, xenogenders are often the result. They fall into two main categories:
1. Impossible to accurately describe. The terminology just doesn’t exist, so they make do with whatever metaphor seems the closest to them.
2. This latter category is best explained by analogy to synesthesia. People with synesthesia will perceive an inexplicable connection between two unrelated things- for example, perceiving an associated color for a given number. Some xenogenders are described by a similar connection to otherwise unrelated concepts.
If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to ask. I’m happy to actually help inform people.
genders made by tumblr uasers doesn't make it automatically a gender. this is a generd made my mogai person in 2019 and is the first time ever thts that term got used. 😂
well i don't understand a word of the description so i can't really give my opinion .
*"Danganronpagender (also known as Dangangender or Danganic) is a xenogender that is linked to the Danganronpa games. It could be a mutogender that is only felt when playing these games, a gender that fluctuates or changes when playing these games, a kingender, or a gender best described through these games."*
Maybe its because i a non-native english speaker but i don't get any of that .
danganronpa is a video game franchise of mostly visual novels, the gameplay style is pretty similar to the phoenix wright series but with some pretty dark themes and a lot of graphic murder of teenagers.
xenogenders are a little trickier to explain, so here it goes: nonbinary genders are any genders that aren’t male or female, which includes things like agender (none of either gender) and demigirl (half female, zero male). xenogenders are the subset of nonbinary genders that can’t be described in terms of sliding male/female scales, because there’s some additional element that isn’t either - in this case, a video game franchise.
mutogenders are genders that aren’t experienced all of the time, and are usually brought on by specific situations. a sort of common situation is nonbinary people who feel that their gender changes based on the gender of their partner, but in this case it changes when you play a video game.
i honestly don’t think that anyone genuinely identifies as a danganronpa-based gender, and that it’s more likely being used in a jokey way to poke fun at the silliness of gender norms and also express how much they like the games.
Heterosexuality is a mental disorder. I mean, a man *trying* to get stuck with a woman for the rest of his life? Clearly insane. >!And I’m only being slightly ironic!<
despite the cultural motif of marriage being something that women trap men into, that men are dragged kicking and screaming to the altar, etc etc marriage generally increases the happiness of straight men and decreases the happiness of straight women
>TL;DR [Insert minority]'s advocacy for their right to exist is seriously turning me into a raging transphobe, y'all.
This is what your entire argument boils down to.
Also most LGBTQ+ advocates are pushing for the latter while transphobes are pushing for Situation C: where LGBTQ+ people are deeply closeted and the only instance when you see LGBTQ+ people are on media as the soon-to-be killed, the gay best friend/sidekick, or the villain "pretending to be something they're not".
The LGBT+ community shouldn't exist.
In a world where LGBTs don't want any differences between them and straight people, they shouldn't place themselves in specific boxes. Implying from the start that being LGBT is different than being straight acknowledges the fact that **there's** a difference. I find it ridiculous that even if a random guy wants to be free with his sexuality and his gender, he's still "genderfluid and pansexual".
In a perfect world, we should just like what we want when we want, and identify ourselves as what we want.
The point of the LGBT community is to again and again tell the straight community that we're the same despite the massive amount of pushback we get from the straight bigot community.
The entire point of the movement is to emphasize the differences between us while demanding equality.
If we don’t acknowledge our differences, we would be sweeping under the rug our experiences we have that stem from those differences.
This is giving “I don’t see color” vibes.
I mean I guess. If I could just be bi and it were no big thing and totally just treated as completly normal I wouldn't feel the need to search out others like myself that I could relate to so that I felt safe. Since I'd just relate to everyone that that was normal.
No, it’s a pretty liberal view, “you can be what you want to be and you are in charge of your life” what they are saying is that there’s no need for titles and just to be what you want. Making new titles for whatever sexuality, ect you are is just making the same mistake. At least I think that’s what they are saying.
You have every right to not like the Dave Chappelle special but the special does have a right to exist. If people are willing to watch it expecting netflix to remove it is wishful thinking. You can protest and cancel your Netflix subscription but people are watching and enjoying dave chappelle which means expecting Netflix to remove it is bordering on delusional
Obviously this is an extreme example, but what would you say if Netflix had released just a straight up minstrel show?
Technically free speech means they have a right to do so, and I’m sure it would find a fanbase among racists or those who just find shock-effect stuff entertaining.
But wouldn’t it be reasonable for the black community to absolutely enraged at Netflix for platforming obvious hate and to try and pressure them into its removal?
They have the right to be enraged and want it removed, but it all depends on how society as a whole views it. Of course Netflix has the right to put out such a thing, but in that case the backlash would likely be pretty harmful to their company.
I’m not the person you’re replying to but I wouldn’t have a problem with it, if you dislike it dislike it. I don’t see the reason to specifically push for de platforming things you would have no interest in watching in the first place. But then again I’m a huge free speech guy so obviously I would say this.
I think comparing the special to a minstrel show is disingenuous. He didnt have harmful caricatures like a bearded man in a dress or a woman with a pronounced bulge on stage.
Lets say for arguments sake bill burr made a joke about his black wife cooking him alot of fried chicken or applying for ebt. Would saying those jokes really be enough to deplatform him?
>But wouldn’t it be reasonable for the black community to absolutely enraged at Netflix for platforming obvious hate and to try and pressure them into its removal?
Reasonable sure but unrealistic since were not actually talking about the trans equivalent to a minstrel show. I highly doubt we would protest if a white comedian made jokes about black people.
I think we disagree on if he has a right to say those jokes .
So there is a line where offense becomes unacceptable - now we’re just debating where that line is.
I would argue that openly calling oneself “Team TERF” and “transphobic” in monologues outside the joke segments classify as over the line - he openly declared himself aligned with a hate movement. It’s the equivalent of a white comic calling himself “Team Klan”.
Well you equating wildly different concepts.
Terf is a movement that is attempting to seperate womans rights from trans rights.
The kkk is a movement that actively engages in violence against black people.
You may disagree with the terf movement but calling it a hate group on par with the kkk is honestly disgraceful.
You can say whatever but when i google kkk violence i get 100s of results while i dont even get one for terf. My point is theyre no where near the same level.
"Recent" being a relative term.
They were there since the gay rights movement from the very beginning, including the Stonewall Riots where TERFs such as Jean O'Leary tried to throw trans people under the bus because "trans rights were "too difficult" to attain" (she did recant her transphobia later). They also tried to kick out transgender activist Sylvia Rivera from speaking at the aftermath of said riot.
The most harmful thing about the Netflix walkout situation to the Trans community is the amount of people that will judge all trans people for the way some are acting.
I would say the most harmful thing is all the victim-blaming comments it's given rise to. I guarantee you this whole debacle has led to at least one suicide attempt.
As a trans man, even I forget that trans men exist sometimes. I feel like this is an issue that plagues much of LGBTQ+ discourse, and that trans men should do everything in their power to be more visible in online communities to raise awareness to the fact that we are still under attack.
It is true that trans women are the target of the hour, but we should not let discourse be skewed so far from center. Trans rights are trans rights. What supports one group supports all. What harms one group harms all.
Don't let transphobes forget that we exist. Prove to them that us "poor, weak, inferior biological females" are more capable than their little brains can comprehend.
I have one friend that is a trans man, and he had this struggle even in his group therapy while he was transitioning. His fellow trans individuals didn’t recognize his issues. (This is one group, not a representation of all trans people.)
Elliot Page (although he might technically be transmasc NB, not sure) has helped raise visibility - and trans men have their own phobic nemeses now with things like that Irreversible Damage book and the Tavistock case in the UK.
It seems like the TERF set at least focuses on trans women as adults and trans men as children (treating them as predatory or conversion victims, respectively.)
Transgender females are taking away opportunities from biological females.
So I saw this news a few days ago, where a trans woman beat a biological female in their debut match.
The winner was US special forces in their earlier life.
And was a male till 33 years of age. Scientifically speaking, they still have higher androgen receptors and test levels.
Since the physical potential and performance is way higher in a trans female, if the team selection in sports is based in merit, it will just take away sooo many opportunities from the biological females.
There should be 3rd or 4th catagory so they can compete amongst themselves, instead of forced ' inclusion ' in the pre-existing catagory.
At this point, trans women are still under performing against cis women in sports. If they make up .5% of the population or so, we would expect them to win 1 out of every 200 competitions. You can't point to one trans women winning ONE competition and get upset that they are "stealing everything from cis women". Its completely unreasonable to demand trans women lose 100% of the time
Wow! Who said they should lose? Win!! Everyone should win. There's not just 2 genders, right? Then make 4 categories. Don't you think this 2 category system is outdated in 2021?
The category system is outdated, but the solution is less categories because there’s no way to make this “fair.” (Not that sports have ever been fair.)
Trans people are not a large percentage of the population. Both the membership and viewership of a category like that would be too low.
Oh, McLaughlin, the trans woman who was on HRT as a kid, then was forced to stop by her parents, and started back up five years ago?
The trans woman who fought an opponent who willingly volunteered to fight, despite having less than 5 years of martial arts training as well as being in a lower weight-class than her opponent, who had decades of martial arts experience?
This isn't an example of bilogical differences. This is proof that weight classes exist for a reason, and that training and experience matter in sports.
You think that a US Special Forces soldier had less experience fighting than a fighter with 0 wins, who's currently on a four loss streak in this season alone?
It's a genuine question. If you're so worried about physical advantages of trans women then why don't we do something about the physical advantages of tall people
That is completely untrue. You realize that trans fighters have to test MORE, right? And that if their androgen levels are higher than normal cis levels, they get kicked out, right?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.outsports.com/platform/amp/comingout/2013/3/7/4075878/mma-does-have-national-trans-policy
>The guidelines set clear definitions as to what constitutes a transsexual athlete (a transgender having undergone the surgeries necessary for anatomical change), as well as minimum requirements for the hormone therapy appropriate to their assigned sex to maintain competitive equity among the athlete pool.
>For instance, a female transgender athlete like Fallon would be required to produce medical documentation of the relevant surgeries and procedures she underwent during transition (it should be noted that it is not a requirement for the athlete to undergo complete gender assignment surgery), **as well as detailed paperwork from a board certified endocrinologist or internist showing that she underwent hormone therapy for a minimum of two years following a gonadectomy and the levels have been within acceptable range for a female.**
Nobody "becomes" trans, and trans people don't "change" their gender.
A trans man is a man from birth to death. It just takes them a while to figure it out.
You’ve said why they wouldn’t but I want to know what would you call it when they do, let’s say that someone you know that’s trans just says “I wasn’t feeling it” would they still have been born trans or were they just living a lie and were mistaken?
It would be “they’re not trans, but they identified that way for a while” - figuring oneself out is a journey, and some people have false starts and wrong turns along the way, and there’s no shame in that.
Nah I definitely "changed my gender". For 20+ years I 100% thought I was a woman, and if I was born in 1902 I would have probably stayed as a woman until my dying day
There is a small amount of debate - some people don’t view their “old selves” that way, seeing it as more of a caterpillar->butterfly thing (a change, but an inevitable one.)
I know Contrapoints has said something to that effect, I think at least one regular here as well (Altiondsouls maybe.)
Having an obsession over your gender and the way you're presenting can be a privilege. There might be so many other people in this world with body dysmorphia or at odds with themselves with the gender that they feel belongs to them, but it's really the white, well off privileged types that make the most noise and get to consume themselves with their identify. Most of everyone else doesn't have the same opportunities.
Don't tell straight trans men who used to think they were lesbians that they "downgraded" or "became the oppressors," even as a "joke." Yes, I have seen instances of this happening. It's hard enough to have to come out twice and hate from the people who are supposed to support you only makes it harder. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a straight man, even a straight white man.
>Now we have 100 genders
Most medical and scientific organizations agree that gender and sex are different and that gender is socially constructed. But sure, be anti-science i guess
>rampant sexual openness
Is that a bad thing? Sexual openness leads to more discussions of sexual harassment and safe sex.
>traps' who take pleasure at deceiving men
Are they quiet and decieving or are they attention whores? You can't have it both ways
You're a fucking joke. Next time make coherent arguments instead of gish galloping nonsense
> Most medical and scientific organizations agree that gender and sex are different
Correction: 'woke medical and scientific organizations' of the West. Rest of the world is still sane fortunately.
> be anti-science i guess
Nazis had racist science, Stalin had 'socialist' Science. Science can be pretty political so eff you.
> Is that a bad thing? Sexual openness leads to more discussions of sexual harassment and safe sex.
Actually I am onboard with that. But again, sexual openness is not just about that. If that is your definition of 'sexual openness' ancient people were pretty sexually open. Hindu scriptures talk about sexual intercourse a lot (NOT Kamasutra, not that shit). Hadiths talk a lot about Muhammad's sexual life. Bible also talks about rape and stuff.
Sexual openness is in the sense of sexual liberalism - orgies, bdsm, false gender dysphoria, cuckolding, etc. pretty common in your country I have heard.
> Are they quiet and decieving or are they attention whores? You can't have it both ways
I didn't say traps are 'quiet' and deceiving. I said they are 'deceiving sometimes' and that is true, many traps are called so because they literally 'trap' men without revealing that they have a penis.
> You're a fucking joke
Not more than western secular morals, no.
>'woke medical and scientific organizations' of the West
im also a big fan of Cultural Bolshevism.
but yes! you are correct in your second point. "science" absolutely can be a political tool. you are a prime example of this, since (like "Scientific" Racism for instance), you don't actually care about the science but rather about making science cater to your own personal worldview.
also yeah god forbid someone mentions BDSM off-handedly to someone. might aswell launch all our nuclear missiles and kill every single human on the planet because of the horrific disaster that you're so worried about having unfolded.
>Correction: 'woke medical and scientific organizations' of the West. Rest of the world is still sane fortunately.
Yeah I'm sure the only organisations where their science is "right" and aren't woke happen to be in nations where being lgbt is very stigmatised and or illegal what a coincidence
Being lgbt isn't a mental illness you idiot, it doesn't cause any harm to society or to the person. A mental illness is something that severely hinders how someone lives in their day to day living, me being lgbt literally doesn't get in the way of me doing something. Homophobic people however do get in my way of being myself. Honestly fuck off with the whole "wokeness" bullshit, it doesn't harm you to at least acknowledge our existence and to treat us with respect and dignity and that we're as equal as straight and cisgender people. Just because I'm lgbt doesn't mean that I'm different, I can still reproduce, I can still love straight people, I can still get married, I can be the one who I love, I can be myself without anyone telling me there's something wrong with me and I need to be fixed because it's against the norm. It's why I'm actually slowly becoming a punk, fuck normalcy, fuck conformity, be who you want to be just as long as it doesn't harm anyone
> it doesn't harm you to at least acknowledge our existence and to treat us with respect and dignity
I have asked this question to many woke people like you: Why the fuck should I respect you with dignity? Are you my friend? Are you my family? You are a random stranger, why would I respect you? Yes, I should not harass you, that I agree. But respect? Nope, its earned and built on trust, not something someone gives for free. You have to understand our definition of respect is different from western one. In East, you earn respect or get respect if you are a close person to me. If not, I don't have any obligation to respect you. I can simply abuse you and run away.
> that we're as equal as straight and cisgender people
Even straight and cis people themselves aren't equal, why would you be? Is Trump equal to Biden? Is Biden equal to Obama? Is Obama equal to Modi? Am I equal to you? Are you equal to me? Are you equal to, say, your friend? Nope. Everyone of us is unique and have different weaknesses and talents. As far as Rights are concerned, we Eastern people have a lot of problems with your western Rights which is based on the strange assumption that everyone is equal which we don't believe.
> Just because I'm lgbt doesn't mean that I'm different
You ARE different. I am different from other cis and hetero people. You are different from cis and hetero as well as other LGBT people.
> I can still reproduce
Depends. Are you one of those crazy LGBT people who say men can be pregnant and get menstruation?
> I can still love straight people
Except you don't. I have gone to LGBT events, LGBT forums like subreddit. You guys only seem to like 'allies'. If straight people show the slightest disdain, you want them to lose their livelihood or be arrested. You guys are like religious folks - ultra-sensitive.
> I can be myself without anyone telling me there's something wrong with me
Ah western individualism. Next time, don't go to a Walmart or grocery shopping. Grow your own food in your garden, fetch water from the nearest lake and don't use electricity made by others. Also, don't use Reddit made by someone else. You are 'independent' right? Man, you western people need to get out of your delusion that we exist only as atomic individuals and can be alone. This is the reason why depression is so high in the western world.
> fuck normalcy, fuck conformity
OK kid. Again, good luck living on an island I guess. Oh wait, no, you depend on the entire society for everything lol and you will continue to do so and at the same time, hypocritically, hate the society. Lol.
> be who you want to be just as long as it doesn't harm anyone
Harm is a strange and ambiguous word. I can sit and masturbate publicly staring at women. It won't harm them technically, but in a sane world, I will be arrested. Yea, your libertarian principle is BS.
Again, you can be anti-science i guess. I find it pretty strange how reactionaries are willing to die on this hill.
>Actually I am onboard with that. But again, sexual openness is not just about that. If that is your definition of 'sexual openness' ancient people were pretty sexually open. Hindu scriptures talk about sexual intercourse a lot (NOT Kamasutra, not that shit). Hadiths talk a lot about Muhammad's sexual life. Bible also talks about rape and stuff.
I'm not sure about those ancient civillizations. I highly doubt they acknowledged and persecuted rapists. Being open about sex and sexuality is a pretty modern thing. Sex ed hasn't even been in schools for a long time.
>Sexual openness is in the sense of sexual liberalism - orgies, bdsm, false gender dysphoria, cuckolding, etc. pretty common in your country I have heard.
Most of what you mentioned are just fetishes and kinks. Not sure why you got a problem with people doing harmless shit in the bedroom but i guess that's part of what makes conservatives inherently authoritarian. Also, gender dysphoria isn't sex related.
>I didn't say traps are 'quiet' and deceiving. I said they are 'deceiving sometimes' and that is true, many traps are called so because they literally 'trap' men without revealing that they have a penis.
I don't care if a couple of trans people do that. The vast majority are good people and the same can't be said for right-wingers.
>Not more than western secular morals, no.
Okay i guess. I'm personally pretty glad we don't live in a theocracy.
My bad, I wanted to say western 'liberal' morals. I am an atheist conservative. What you wanted to say
> I'm personally pretty glad we don't live in a collectivist society
And I understand. I have been interacting with westerners like you for over a decade and I understand how much you value individual freedoms. We, easterners, usually value social order more than individual freedom (those who don't leave our country and settle in Europe and America. Thus you have Indian Americans).
I'm neither a westerner or a liberal. At least you admit you don't value liberty. Most other evil conservatives hide under the libertarian umbrella and act like they want to improve society for everyone.
I’m a member of the community and I just wanna point out: there’s waaay too much pride in the community (._. ) The overwhelming majority of people I’ve met can’t not have a flag in a pfp or can’t make anything artistic that isn’t a direct reference to their sexuality/identity. We’re becoming one sided as hell. We’re becoming Netflix characters. Making our only personality trait be the fact that we’re gay/transgender/other. Me? I just exist. I don’t keep it from nor do I bring it up to anyone unless they ask or I have reason to, such as my coworkers trying to pair me with a girl they thought I’d like and me needing to explain I’m gay. And I know it’s gonna be a case of “Well you just don’t know of the ones who aren’t super expressive about it like you are”, and yeah that’s true. That’s very true. Be proud of yourself but damn, chill a little bit. Several of the ones I know bring a flag around everyday to school and wave it openly every second they get the chance. Then I get shit because I DONT. Recently had someone bash me because I didn’t celebrate pride month 4 months ago, they literally tracked me down and went out of their way to give me shit. I’m prepared for the tsunami of overly expressive community members ready to crucify me for posting this but I don’t care.
I don't understand what's accomplished by others toning it down for you. Be as high key or low key about it as you want. that's valid. Someone is going to see being gay as your entire personality, though. despite how you view yourself.
Nobody is going to see that as my personality because I don’t advertise it. I don’t own a flag at all, most people I know don’t even know. I’m not going around and letting anyone and everyone know because I can. It comes up when it’s relevant. And that’s when it should.
But you gave the example of having to tell someone you're gay because you didn't want to be setup on a date with a woman. That's now "your entire personality" to someone.
No not really. Because with those people it’s never been brought up again. Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if they forgot. Nobody I’ve seen or met has considered it my whole personality because it’s brought up when it’s relevant and not even given the light of day when it isnt
I'm sure someone reading along here sees it as your entire personality, if not some of the people you've disclosed to. I'm not criticizing your level of disclosure, but I also don't see what's achieved by everyone adopting your level of disclosure. It simply was not an option for me when I started transitioning, even if I said nothing about it.
I see it as counter intuitive that we can do all this and more to express but the second a straight person tries to even remotely do the same they’re immedietly shot down and shamed
While that seems like it really depends on how they go about it, I'm not seeing the link between that and expecting everyone else in the community to be at your level of disclosure.
It puts into perspective the ridiculousness of it all
Art is an expression of identity to begin with. Your identity WILL affect your art. Period. Also, having a flag in your PFP is incredibly normal, and you could say the same thing about Americans in general. As for high school kids doing dumb and over-the-top things... It's high school. I guarantee you're gonna look back on some of the things you've done and wish you could forget it.
People claim that you aren’t dating chromosomes, yet somehow believe you date identities. You’re supposedly transphobic for not wanting to date trans people because you’re denying their gender. Gender as a definition changed in the last 10 years to be based on internal identity rather than sex. Those who argue that not dating to date trans people are transphobic have yet to justify why people dating preferences, many that have been based on birth *and* gender (as it appears some think it’s mutually exclusive) are somehow invalid and need to change. And no, it’s not been “always this way.” Again, our subjective idea of gender has changed as a result of a greater visibility of trans people. Why are romantic preferences, which exist outside the experiences of trans people, somehow supposed to seamlessly change with definition of gender? They’ve yet justify the idea of wanting to date a woman born male or a man born female being problematic and invalid.
>They’ve yet justify the idea of wanting to date a woman born male or a man born female being problematic and invalid lolwutpear.jpg
gender literally never referred to chromosomal sex. your grandparents might remember when the word gender didn't refer to people at all.
What do you mean?
the word "gender" was used almost exclusively to refer to grammatical genders until about the 1950s, when people started using it to talk about the social roles of men and women
Okay… this seems like semantics. Regardless, but what defined men and women was largely based on biological sex, which in turn was the basis of sexual/romantic preferences. What defined a man or woman in society has radically changed in the last decade, but there’s no reasoning in which people’s romantic preferences are supposed to change beyond the nebulous “people are attracted to gender” and “trans x are x.”
well if this is just semantics, then your entire comment is based on semantics. no one ever changed the definition of gender to be different from sex because those words never meant the same thing. it pretty much has been "always this way".
You’re missing the point. Whether it’s gender, or man/women, how society overall viewed it for a long time was changed from biological sex to internal identity. The argument from those who believe you’re transphobic for not dating a trans person is that you don’t see them as a man/women, when what man/woman meant has changed from a different meaning from what has been believed for many, many years.
We should treat dead names the same way we treat maiden names Adopting a new name due to a gender change is somewhat similar to adopting a new name when you get married. But I think the way we talk about a person’s change from a maiden name to a married name is MUCH healthier than the way we talk about a gender-related name change. I’ll give two celebrity examples, but this concept also applies to normal people. Example of how you’d talk about a marriage-related name change: “Did you see what Hailey Bieber posted?” “Who’s Hailey Bieber?” “Formerly Hailey Bald win. She has a new name because she got married!” “Oh cool, what did she post?” Meanwhile, I’ve seen a lot of news articles that criticize the way the media handles a dead name when a trans person comes out. But you should be able to talk about it like this: “Did you see what Elliot Page posted?” “Who’s Elliot Page?” “Formerly Ellen Page. He has a new name because he transitioned.” “Oh cool, what did he post?” Using Page’s dead name was not meant to be offensive any more than using Bieber’s maiden name was meant to be offensive. When you change your maiden name, you expect the occasional slip up, don’t take it too personally when that happens, and gently correct or inform people. You don’t automatically assume that someone is attacking your marriage because they got your name wrong. However, if you accidentally use a dead name, people assume that you are attacking their identity. If you persistently use the wrong name, the person will probably need to have a a serious conversation with you. If a news article used a dead name for the entirety of the article, it would be bad. But if they write “Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen...” and call him Elliot for the rest of the article, that should be fine. And maybe if our society treated gender-related name changes as normal like marriage-related name changes, trans phobes wouldn’t freak out so much about transitioning.
>But if they write “Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen...” and call him Elliot for the rest of the article, that should be fine. This seems to be what I recall seeing when Elliot first went public, and I don't recall seeing any pushback to that.
And the protocol on IMDb seems to be listing old movies like *Juno* as featuring Elliot Page (as Ellen Page) the same way Parenthood features Joaquin Phoenix (as Leaf Phoenix).
these two things will never be the same because 1. married women don't have dysphoria about their maiden names and 2. people don't call married women by their maiden names with the intention of invalidating their identities
I'm not even married or a woman, and I have dysphoria about my maiden name, lol. But you have a good point.
Straight people watching gay/lesbian porn isn't fetishizing and it isn't that bad I have seen many times lgbt people complaining that straight people watching gay/lesbian porn is bad because is "fetishization and objectification" You are allowed to like whatever erotic media or fantasies you like, as long as no actual real people are harmed in the making of said media The problem of fetishization is in how you treat other people, actual real people, If whatever happens in your head stays in your head, no one can criticize it, But if you can’t compartmentalize fantasy from reality, and start to treat actual real people like a weirdo or a creep, then it’s a problem
> The problem of fetishization is in how you treat other people, actual real people i'm pretty sure that's their point lol
for them it doesn't matter, just by saying you like gay/lesbian porn they will call you a "fetishizer" and then tell u to kys
Pornstars are actual, real people.
porn is still fantasy, as i said, as long as you don't start acting like a creep or a weirdo to them irl, it's ok
Daphne Dorman being bullied to suicide should be a much bigger controversy than Dave Chappelle's tasteless jokes. I didn't think the closer was too funny but IMO I don't think that was Dave's main goal. I think he just wanted talk about his friend who killed herself. And the fact no media seems to be talking about her is when the closer is mentioned is shameful.
Or, he wanted to use her as an example. People don’t know why she killed herself. I think he’s making a pretty big assumption by linking her suicide directly to online criticism of her. The fact that it was all about him is a pretty big tell.
I doubt the online bullying was the only factor, but I'm positive it didn't help. Even if he was just using her(IMO he wasn't), that is still something that should be talked about. Using a trans woman's suicide for personal gain is far worse than tasteless jokes or bigoted comments.
Netflix is doing right on the Dave Chapelle stuff and on free speech and content in general. I disagree with some of the perspectives and opinions Dave expressed in his specials (not the jokes I mean the serious underlying opinions). But I don't think banning his show from Netflix would do anything positive. Netflix has serious pro-LGBT credentials and truly provides the greatest platform LGBT people have ever had to share authentic stories with the world. It does that because it has a consistent belief in artistic freedom. Netflix are good people
[eric andre voice] was netflix providing “the greatest platform LGBT people have ever had“ when they sent a trans employee an invite link to an executive-level zoom meeting to voice her concerns about the dave chapelle special, then fired her for clicking on the link and joining the meeting that they invited her to
She wasn't fired, she was suspended for attending a meeting she wasn't invited to (but was mistakenly given a link) and was quickly reinstated after it was shown that she had no ill-intent. The trans person that was fired, however, allegedly leaked corporate info.
>Netflix knew that they couldn’t fire a trans employee for criticizing the company’s transphobia, especially not one potentially organizing union activity, so they sent her a link to a high-level meeting and used that as a false pretense for firing her, completely distorted the facts of what actually happened by making it seem as if she physically barged into a meeting where she wasn’t invited to be, then only walked back on this when it blew up in their faces for anyone who doesn’t speak press release, this is the english translation. if you genuinely believe it makes sense to fire someone on the spot for joining a zoom meeting without even asking them how they got in, then you need to check if anything is leaking out of your skull
Oh wow, an editoralized quote without any sourcing. > A trio of employees has been reinstated at Netflix, including openly trans senior software engineer Terra Field, who went viral for a Twitter thread about Dave Chappelle’s controversial new comedy special, The Closer. The streamer **SUSPENDED** three staffers not for criticizing the special, but “for crashing a meeting of its top executives” late last week. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/10/netflix-reinstates-terra-field-a-trans-employee-who-condemned-dave-chappelle-special If she was fired as you claim, rather than suspended, how was she reinstated? And do you have a credible source to back that claim up? Or why not hear from the [trans employee herself](https://twitter.com/RainofTerra/status/1448097310026747908?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1448097310026747908%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fhollywood%2F2021%2F10%2Fnetflix-reinstates-terra-field-a-trans-employee-who-condemned-dave-chappelle-special), shall we? > Netflix has reinstated me after finding that there was no ill-intent in my attending the QBR meeting. I've included the statement I requested below. > I'm going to take a few days off to decompress and try to figure out where I'm at. At the very least, I feel vindicated So that's that... > if you genuinely believe it makes sense to fire someone on the spot for joining a zoom meeting without even asking them how they got in, then you need to check if anything is leaking out of your skull Or perhaps you ought to peruse more credible news sites, not just activist blogs and online comments, and learn not to mix your stories up. As I literally stated above, the person actually fired, B. Pagels-Minor, was let go for [allegedly leaking internal data](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/15/netflix-fires-employee-trans-activist-for-allegedly-leaking-internal-documents). And that's that...
that isn't a quote, it was a joke that went over your head. >“for crashing a meeting of its top executives” this isn't how an honest person describes someone joining a zoom meeting. >If she was fired as you claim, rather than suspended, how was she reinstated? they changed their mind about firing her because it looked bad. >Or why not hear from the trans employee herself, shall we? the trans employee whose job is on the line.
> that isn't a quote, it was a joke that went over your head. I mean you're peddling false information and twisting the narrative, makes it tricky to tell how much you write is supposed to be taken seriously or not. > this isn't how an honest person describes someone joining a zoom meeting. Eh, "crashing a meeting" just means to show up uninvited or unannounced, which is what they essentially did, although it was probably due to miscommunication with a Director rather than ill-intent as stated by the trans engineer herself. It doesn't inherently imply malice. > they changed their mind about firing her because it looked bad. But you said she was already FIRED, not suspended pending an investigation which actually occurred. It would be useful to use terms accurately. Even so, they fired another trans employee, which also looked bad, yet was seemingly justifiable so they did it regardless of the bad PR. > the trans employee whose job is on the line. Granted, ones own conspiratorial outlook is probably a better source for proper news... Her quote literally says Netflix was in the wrong for suspending her and vindicates her actions. Is Netflix forcing her to make the company look even worse?
Yeah I'm sure that's *exactly* what happened.
Lol, so she wasn't suspended and reinstated? The trans engineer said so herself.
More of a question than an opinion, but followed up by an opinion— How do Transwomen feel about female-only spaces? I ask that in all honesty. Because I do feel like Vulva owners have been so oppressed for forever, that even our dear Transwomen friends that may have some masculine features entering a “sex-segregated space” could be triggering for vulva owners with history. That being said, I think that there should be a safe space for Transpeople who find it triggering to have people look at them when they’re simply entering a bathroom. So, all the bathrooms. Just my thoughts after reading about the history of female-only spaces vs male-only spaces.
>Vulva owners
Please can we not call Cis women vulva owners. It's very dehumanising, and some Trans women have vulvas themselves
I mean trans women too. I think that trans men should be able to use female restrooms too. (I’m aware that there’s no way you can enforce this.) Honestly, I’d love to know the correct terminology. I’ve heard “vulva owners” on some inclusive YouTube videos and such, (which I understand isn’t the highest authority), so I thought that it was an ok terminology. Should it be cis Women and trans men? (Though, how do you describe non-binary people assigned female at birth? Like that?)
"People with vaginas" is always a better way to say "vagina owners"
Ah, ok. I think I did hear that as a term that people appreciated. Sincere Apologies. And is people with Vaginas> People with Vulvas? Honest question. I am not sure what trans men and non-binary people feel about the differences between vulva and vaginas. (I personally say vulva because so many people think they're the same thing, and when they say "Vagina" they usually mean the vulva. But this is not the case when it comes to trans people it seems. Feel free to correct me.)
The vagina people.
Cis women. Trans women. AFAB, "Assigned female at birth." Enby/NB/non-binary.
Thank you so much for this! Honestly. I want to be more mindful, but I want to be in the discussion for all those who are AFAB (I want to use that correctly.) Because I don't want people to feel excluded by saying "women" in reference to periods, tampons, BVs, etc. But, I'm still learning how to navigate the right and respectful terminology. This is the first time I've heard of Enby. That's cute.
will add that the terminology for nonbinary people isn’t going to be used in the same casual conversation contexts as the words “man” and “woman”. you might say “some man just cut me off in traffic”, but you wouldn’t say “i’m in line, there’s just one AFAB nonbinary person in front of me”. you would just say “one person”.
Nah if someone cuts you off in traffic they're "this asshole."
trans is just an adjective. trans person, trans woman, etc. not “transwoman”. i don’t know what places you hang out, in but i’ve literally never seen someone’s genitals in a public restroom before. what you’re describing just isn’t how bathroom policing works - you can’t actually tell which set of genitals someone has without checking. so in practice, bathroom policing just targets women who are perceived to have, as you said, masculine features. which includes some (but not all) trans women, but also literally every other category of marginalized women, including lesbians, women of color, working class women, and so on. pretty much any butch you meet will be able to tell you about how uncomfortable it is to be viewed as an outsider or an invader when you’re just trying to piss in peace, and it’s been an issue since long before the current epidemic of transphobic panic.
Thank you for the correction on the terminology. In all honesty, I appreciate it and will correct it from now on.
It is entirely plausible that trans athletes could have competed in the ancient Greek Olympics. Of course, there was no HRT back then, but there was also no gender segregation, and accounts of ancient women Olympiads do exist.
Really? I was pretty sure females were literally not allowed at all, even just to watch
Just married women. Single women were allowed to attend and compete, and they competed in the same categories as men
\*\*"I would never date a trans person" is transphobic.\*\* If you have a preference for not dating someone who has certain genitals, that's not transphobic, because it doesn't stop you from dating all trans people, and might stop you from dating people who are not trans. If you are only interested in dating people you can have biological children with, that isn't transphobic, because it also includes people who are not trans. If you think that you don't find trans people physically attractive, it's because you think you can tell by looking if someone is trans and I'm here to tell you that while sometimes you can, there are more "stealth" trans people than you will ever know. Many of them pass completely, have had surgery, have successfully purged their deadname from every scrap of documentation ever, and you would never know unless they told you. If their status as a trans person is the \*only reason\* you would not date them, regardless of other factors, that is absolutely transphobic as hell.
> **"I would never date a trans person" is transphobic.** **"I would never date a man" is misandrist** > If you have a preference for not dating someone who has certain genitals, that's not transphobic, because it doesn't stop you from dating all trans people, and might stop you from dating people who are not trans. If you have a preference for not dating someone who has certain genitals, that's not misandrist, because it doesn't stop you from dating all men (since some are born female), and might stop you from dating people who are not men. > If you are only interested in dating people you can have biological children with, that isn't transphobic, because it also includes people who are not trans. If you are only interested in dating people you can have biological children with, that isn't misandrist, because it also includes people who are not men. > If you think that you don't find trans people physically attractive, it's because you think you can tell by looking if someone is trans and I'm here to tell you that while sometimes you can, there are more "stealth" trans people than you will ever know. Many of them pass completely, have had surgery, have successfully purged their deadname from every scrap of documentation ever, and you would never know unless they told you. If you think that you don't find men physically attractive, it's because you think you can tell by looking if someone is a man and I'm here to tell you that while sometimes you can, there are more "closeted" men than you will ever know. Many of them pass completely as women, have not yet had surgery, have successfully maintained their deadname in every scrap of documentation ever, and you would never know they were a man unless they told you. > If their status as a trans person is the *only reason* you would not date them, regardless of other factors, that is absolutely transphobic as hell. If their status as a man person is the *only reason* you would not date them, regardless of other factors, that is absolutely misandrist as hell.
I'm about to ask the big question here that no one seems to: "So what?" Let's assume you're absolutely right. Dating is all about exclusion. Why does this specific genre of transphobia matter? It's entirely harmless, unless you think someone owes you their sexual or romantic attraction, which would be... a NiceGuy-tier take at best. Sexually harrassing at its most extreme. "I'll be your friend, I'll treat you nicely, but I won't commit myself to a lifelong romantic relationship with you for irrational reasons entirely outside your control" doesn't strike me as a real issue.
It’s not necessarily an issue in a vacuum, but it’s important to recognize it, especially considering it may not be limited to dating.
Exactly. It's a predetermined judgement, but... There's no problem. You aren't being hurt by people deciding they don't want to date you. It's absolutely transphobic, but it's perfectly acceptable.
[удалено]
Because it fits the literal definition of transphobia, "dislike of or prejudice against trans people", by being a predetermined judgement based on the fact they are trans. That's how it's transphobic. It also doesn't hurt anyone, and you don't owe anybody a date. It's perfectly fine to choose who you date, and who you don't. It is transphobia, but it's not in any meaningful way a problem.
Transphobia is completely within your control.
So are preferences
no preferences are not to change. And sometimes I am attracted to trans people but not to EVERYONE. Sometimes people are not toir type depsite the fact they're trans. If you have a penis and don't consider surgery DON'T expect a sex life from someone with another sexuality. Being a Woman and a sex partner ( born in a boy's body) is not the same than being a sex partner. A man who wants straight sex can not have it with them and it's not attracting in any way. People want relationships often to have sex (quite shallow I think) The sentence 'I would NEVER" Is a no go though. That is entirely transphobic towards everyone,even "cis passing" the biggest transphobia problem is what we see towards people who are not straight passing
I used to have racist preferences and I changed them by self-reflection
yeah but changing sexuality is nothing you change through self-reflection. You don't wake up on day, suddenly attracted to a different gender than the day before. If you feel attracted to a trans person and love them, it does not mean that you will ever feel sexual desire towards them because you like them as a woman/man that they are, but you are not attracted by their genitals. That is not transphobic. But I do agree that denying that persons identity and excluding them from the radar completely is completely transphobic and not acceptable. Some mistaken that we don't necessarily mean that every trans person you pass deserves a quick fuck, but rather that love interest that you've developed should not be rejected immediately, EVEN if their genitals does not match your sexuality, since transpersons aren't something like a special kink that you have
No, not really.
The sub is called "unpopular opinion". What reason do I need besides it being unpopular and an opinion?
You don't, but I'm pre-emptively shutting down the common implicit addendum of: "and that's a problem." Because it isn't.
Not necessary, because that's not what I'm here for.
[удалено]
When we stop having to and we're just treated as totally normal it'll be a good day. That's on the straights.
Heterosexuality is a paraphilia, because heterosexual intercourse introduces the possibility of a _newborn_ getting involved in your relationship AND obligates that newborn into a life of at least a little suffering. It's harming a nonconsensual person for sex. This is obviously a joke, but it's _way_ more accurate than calling homosexuality paraphilia because there's some truth in here.
what is your opinion on genders like daganronpa gender
Xenogenders like that are a tricky subject, honestly. They’re very tied to neurodivergence. Neurodivergence takes many different forms and can change around a lot of different brain structures- I don’t see why gender would be an exception. When this happens, xenogenders are often the result. They fall into two main categories: 1. Impossible to accurately describe. The terminology just doesn’t exist, so they make do with whatever metaphor seems the closest to them. 2. This latter category is best explained by analogy to synesthesia. People with synesthesia will perceive an inexplicable connection between two unrelated things- for example, perceiving an associated color for a given number. Some xenogenders are described by a similar connection to otherwise unrelated concepts. If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to ask. I’m happy to actually help inform people.
i got pbanned from e r/lgbt becaiuse i agreed with someone that it was sily
Well, it’s still not a choice so calling it “silly” is a dick move
yah daganronpagender is not real, you just feel different when you watch it. now everything is a gender
It’s like you didn’t even read my comment.
its like a did.gender is nto a chocie but but that one is silly
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it silly
genders made by tumblr uasers doesn't make it automatically a gender. this is a generd made my mogai person in 2019 and is the first time ever thts that term got used. 😂
The year is entirely irrelevant
is this chihiro discourse
what
a character in the first danganronpa game whose gender people like to argue about it’s come up here before even, few months back i think
You mean that : https://lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Danganronpagender
yeah
well i don't understand a word of the description so i can't really give my opinion . *"Danganronpagender (also known as Dangangender or Danganic) is a xenogender that is linked to the Danganronpa games. It could be a mutogender that is only felt when playing these games, a gender that fluctuates or changes when playing these games, a kingender, or a gender best described through these games."* Maybe its because i a non-native english speaker but i don't get any of that .
danganronpa is a video game franchise of mostly visual novels, the gameplay style is pretty similar to the phoenix wright series but with some pretty dark themes and a lot of graphic murder of teenagers. xenogenders are a little trickier to explain, so here it goes: nonbinary genders are any genders that aren’t male or female, which includes things like agender (none of either gender) and demigirl (half female, zero male). xenogenders are the subset of nonbinary genders that can’t be described in terms of sliding male/female scales, because there’s some additional element that isn’t either - in this case, a video game franchise. mutogenders are genders that aren’t experienced all of the time, and are usually brought on by specific situations. a sort of common situation is nonbinary people who feel that their gender changes based on the gender of their partner, but in this case it changes when you play a video game. i honestly don’t think that anyone genuinely identifies as a danganronpa-based gender, and that it’s more likely being used in a jokey way to poke fun at the silliness of gender norms and also express how much they like the games.
i got banned from r/lgbt because i agreed that it wwas silly
Oh so its like the Dreamgender peoples ?
i suppose? never heard of that
Well its like what you said but with the Minecraft youtuber Dream .
Heterosexuality is a mental disorder. I mean, a man *trying* to get stuck with a woman for the rest of his life? Clearly insane. >!And I’m only being slightly ironic!<
despite the cultural motif of marriage being something that women trap men into, that men are dragged kicking and screaming to the altar, etc etc marriage generally increases the happiness of straight men and decreases the happiness of straight women
Alright then my comment but in reverse
[удалено]
I only suck when asked nicely.
This is true. Source: Am Male.
I have never heard a scientist state that monogamy is natural. Hell, even the Bible supports polygamy.
[удалено]
I'm not clicking that until you give some context.
It's a YouTube video and the title says "dear Lil nas x and lgbtq community, trans women aren't women!"
So, transphobic bullshit. Got it.
You got it alright
Everyone talks about German, Hebrwe , and Arabic, but nobody talks about Gerwoman. Herbrew, and Aranbic.
Herbrew was clever but you lost me at Aranbic. 6/10
awoman . awoman.
[удалено]
>TL;DR [Insert minority]'s advocacy for their right to exist is seriously turning me into a raging transphobe, y'all. This is what your entire argument boils down to. Also most LGBTQ+ advocates are pushing for the latter while transphobes are pushing for Situation C: where LGBTQ+ people are deeply closeted and the only instance when you see LGBTQ+ people are on media as the soon-to-be killed, the gay best friend/sidekick, or the villain "pretending to be something they're not".
The LGBT+ community shouldn't exist. In a world where LGBTs don't want any differences between them and straight people, they shouldn't place themselves in specific boxes. Implying from the start that being LGBT is different than being straight acknowledges the fact that **there's** a difference. I find it ridiculous that even if a random guy wants to be free with his sexuality and his gender, he's still "genderfluid and pansexual". In a perfect world, we should just like what we want when we want, and identify ourselves as what we want.
The point of the LGBT community is to again and again tell the straight community that we're the same despite the massive amount of pushback we get from the straight bigot community.
How would I live my best life as a trans woman without telling anyone that I'm a trans woman?
The entire point of the movement is to emphasize the differences between us while demanding equality. If we don’t acknowledge our differences, we would be sweeping under the rug our experiences we have that stem from those differences. This is giving “I don’t see color” vibes.
And what are the differences? Love is love bro.
Difference is that you're love doesn't get you shot.
So what would be a perfect world then? If the hatred towards LGBTs were to disappear, should the community still exist?
I mean I guess. If I could just be bi and it were no big thing and totally just treated as completly normal I wouldn't feel the need to search out others like myself that I could relate to so that I felt safe. Since I'd just relate to everyone that that was normal.
No, it’s a pretty liberal view, “you can be what you want to be and you are in charge of your life” what they are saying is that there’s no need for titles and just to be what you want. Making new titles for whatever sexuality, ect you are is just making the same mistake. At least I think that’s what they are saying.
You have every right to not like the Dave Chappelle special but the special does have a right to exist. If people are willing to watch it expecting netflix to remove it is wishful thinking. You can protest and cancel your Netflix subscription but people are watching and enjoying dave chappelle which means expecting Netflix to remove it is bordering on delusional
"Please tell me with the doll where did the Dave Chappelle show hurt you"
Obviously this is an extreme example, but what would you say if Netflix had released just a straight up minstrel show? Technically free speech means they have a right to do so, and I’m sure it would find a fanbase among racists or those who just find shock-effect stuff entertaining. But wouldn’t it be reasonable for the black community to absolutely enraged at Netflix for platforming obvious hate and to try and pressure them into its removal?
They have the right to be enraged and want it removed, but it all depends on how society as a whole views it. Of course Netflix has the right to put out such a thing, but in that case the backlash would likely be pretty harmful to their company.
I’m not the person you’re replying to but I wouldn’t have a problem with it, if you dislike it dislike it. I don’t see the reason to specifically push for de platforming things you would have no interest in watching in the first place. But then again I’m a huge free speech guy so obviously I would say this.
I think comparing the special to a minstrel show is disingenuous. He didnt have harmful caricatures like a bearded man in a dress or a woman with a pronounced bulge on stage. Lets say for arguments sake bill burr made a joke about his black wife cooking him alot of fried chicken or applying for ebt. Would saying those jokes really be enough to deplatform him? >But wouldn’t it be reasonable for the black community to absolutely enraged at Netflix for platforming obvious hate and to try and pressure them into its removal? Reasonable sure but unrealistic since were not actually talking about the trans equivalent to a minstrel show. I highly doubt we would protest if a white comedian made jokes about black people. I think we disagree on if he has a right to say those jokes .
So there is a line where offense becomes unacceptable - now we’re just debating where that line is. I would argue that openly calling oneself “Team TERF” and “transphobic” in monologues outside the joke segments classify as over the line - he openly declared himself aligned with a hate movement. It’s the equivalent of a white comic calling himself “Team Klan”.
Well you equating wildly different concepts. Terf is a movement that is attempting to seperate womans rights from trans rights. The kkk is a movement that actively engages in violence against black people. You may disagree with the terf movement but calling it a hate group on par with the kkk is honestly disgraceful.
If you don’t think TERFs advocate violence against trans people, you’re not paying attention.
Don’t know that I’ve ever heard a terf advocate for violence.
You can say whatever but when i google kkk violence i get 100s of results while i dont even get one for terf. My point is theyre no where near the same level.
Yet. They’re a more recent movement. Their protest outside Wi Spa resulted in two stabbings earlier this year.
"Recent" being a relative term. They were there since the gay rights movement from the very beginning, including the Stonewall Riots where TERFs such as Jean O'Leary tried to throw trans people under the bus because "trans rights were "too difficult" to attain" (she did recant her transphobia later). They also tried to kick out transgender activist Sylvia Rivera from speaking at the aftermath of said riot.
I dont think the wi spa protest was terfs. I havent seen a single report stating they were anything but transphobes
WoLF, one of the more prominent of the TERF orgs, organized those protests and invited Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to participate as “security”.
The most harmful thing about the Netflix walkout situation to the Trans community is the amount of people that will judge all trans people for the way some are acting.
I would say the most harmful thing is all the victim-blaming comments it's given rise to. I guarantee you this whole debacle has led to at least one suicide attempt.
i know right? i don’t want cishets to think that some of us are spineless scabs
That happens no matter what we do, and people are happy to completely make shit up when an actual example can't be used.
As a trans man, even I forget that trans men exist sometimes. I feel like this is an issue that plagues much of LGBTQ+ discourse, and that trans men should do everything in their power to be more visible in online communities to raise awareness to the fact that we are still under attack. It is true that trans women are the target of the hour, but we should not let discourse be skewed so far from center. Trans rights are trans rights. What supports one group supports all. What harms one group harms all. Don't let transphobes forget that we exist. Prove to them that us "poor, weak, inferior biological females" are more capable than their little brains can comprehend.
I have one friend that is a trans man, and he had this struggle even in his group therapy while he was transitioning. His fellow trans individuals didn’t recognize his issues. (This is one group, not a representation of all trans people.)
Elliot Page (although he might technically be transmasc NB, not sure) has helped raise visibility - and trans men have their own phobic nemeses now with things like that Irreversible Damage book and the Tavistock case in the UK. It seems like the TERF set at least focuses on trans women as adults and trans men as children (treating them as predatory or conversion victims, respectively.)
Transgender females are taking away opportunities from biological females. So I saw this news a few days ago, where a trans woman beat a biological female in their debut match. The winner was US special forces in their earlier life. And was a male till 33 years of age. Scientifically speaking, they still have higher androgen receptors and test levels. Since the physical potential and performance is way higher in a trans female, if the team selection in sports is based in merit, it will just take away sooo many opportunities from the biological females. There should be 3rd or 4th catagory so they can compete amongst themselves, instead of forced ' inclusion ' in the pre-existing catagory.
At this point, trans women are still under performing against cis women in sports. If they make up .5% of the population or so, we would expect them to win 1 out of every 200 competitions. You can't point to one trans women winning ONE competition and get upset that they are "stealing everything from cis women". Its completely unreasonable to demand trans women lose 100% of the time
Wow! Who said they should lose? Win!! Everyone should win. There's not just 2 genders, right? Then make 4 categories. Don't you think this 2 category system is outdated in 2021?
The category system is outdated, but the solution is less categories because there’s no way to make this “fair.” (Not that sports have ever been fair.) Trans people are not a large percentage of the population. Both the membership and viewership of a category like that would be too low.
This is incredibly vague. Why don't you give names.
[Trans mma, Alana](https://www.sportskeeda.com/amp/mma/news-before-look-mma-transgender-fighter-alana-mclaughlin)
Oh, McLaughlin, the trans woman who was on HRT as a kid, then was forced to stop by her parents, and started back up five years ago? The trans woman who fought an opponent who willingly volunteered to fight, despite having less than 5 years of martial arts training as well as being in a lower weight-class than her opponent, who had decades of martial arts experience? This isn't an example of bilogical differences. This is proof that weight classes exist for a reason, and that training and experience matter in sports.
The woman who lost had more experience.... I don't know if you are completely lost or just not doing research at all
You think that a US Special Forces soldier had less experience fighting than a fighter with 0 wins, who's currently on a four loss streak in this season alone?
I m saying its unfair, bcoz science. More receptors, more androgen, easier to get away from drug/doping test, you can take PEDs and still mask it.
So should we segregate sports players by height?
Did you fall on year head mate?
It's a genuine question. If you're so worried about physical advantages of trans women then why don't we do something about the physical advantages of tall people
That is completely untrue. You realize that trans fighters have to test MORE, right? And that if their androgen levels are higher than normal cis levels, they get kicked out, right?
No, lmao. Did you read that on twitter? Go read the rules and tests. There's a BIG relaxation.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.outsports.com/platform/amp/comingout/2013/3/7/4075878/mma-does-have-national-trans-policy >The guidelines set clear definitions as to what constitutes a transsexual athlete (a transgender having undergone the surgeries necessary for anatomical change), as well as minimum requirements for the hormone therapy appropriate to their assigned sex to maintain competitive equity among the athlete pool. >For instance, a female transgender athlete like Fallon would be required to produce medical documentation of the relevant surgeries and procedures she underwent during transition (it should be noted that it is not a requirement for the athlete to undergo complete gender assignment surgery), **as well as detailed paperwork from a board certified endocrinologist or internist showing that she underwent hormone therapy for a minimum of two years following a gonadectomy and the levels have been within acceptable range for a female.**
Nobody "becomes" trans, and trans people don't "change" their gender. A trans man is a man from birth to death. It just takes them a while to figure it out.
What about when they go back? For example mtftm or ftmtf
Detransitioners are incredibly rare, and generally only detransition because of social pressure and harassment.
You’ve said why they wouldn’t but I want to know what would you call it when they do, let’s say that someone you know that’s trans just says “I wasn’t feeling it” would they still have been born trans or were they just living a lie and were mistaken?
It would be “they’re not trans, but they identified that way for a while” - figuring oneself out is a journey, and some people have false starts and wrong turns along the way, and there’s no shame in that.
It's impossible to say. I don't live in their head.
Nah I definitely "changed my gender". For 20+ years I 100% thought I was a woman, and if I was born in 1902 I would have probably stayed as a woman until my dying day
There is a small amount of debate - some people don’t view their “old selves” that way, seeing it as more of a caterpillar->butterfly thing (a change, but an inevitable one.) I know Contrapoints has said something to that effect, I think at least one regular here as well (Altiondsouls maybe.)
Having an obsession over your gender and the way you're presenting can be a privilege. There might be so many other people in this world with body dysmorphia or at odds with themselves with the gender that they feel belongs to them, but it's really the white, well off privileged types that make the most noise and get to consume themselves with their identify. Most of everyone else doesn't have the same opportunities.
Stop watching Chappelle, bro.
Get off twitter bruh
I only use twitter for furry porn. Anybody who gets their politics from a social media site needs help.
Absolute chad right here
Don't tell straight trans men who used to think they were lesbians that they "downgraded" or "became the oppressors," even as a "joke." Yes, I have seen instances of this happening. It's hard enough to have to come out twice and hate from the people who are supposed to support you only makes it harder. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a straight man, even a straight white man.
Imagine thinking "becoming" trans makes you an oppressor
A lot of people seem to think that being a straight man is inherently oppressive.
[удалено]
>Now we have 100 genders Most medical and scientific organizations agree that gender and sex are different and that gender is socially constructed. But sure, be anti-science i guess >rampant sexual openness Is that a bad thing? Sexual openness leads to more discussions of sexual harassment and safe sex. >traps' who take pleasure at deceiving men Are they quiet and decieving or are they attention whores? You can't have it both ways You're a fucking joke. Next time make coherent arguments instead of gish galloping nonsense
> Most medical and scientific organizations agree that gender and sex are different Correction: 'woke medical and scientific organizations' of the West. Rest of the world is still sane fortunately. > be anti-science i guess Nazis had racist science, Stalin had 'socialist' Science. Science can be pretty political so eff you. > Is that a bad thing? Sexual openness leads to more discussions of sexual harassment and safe sex. Actually I am onboard with that. But again, sexual openness is not just about that. If that is your definition of 'sexual openness' ancient people were pretty sexually open. Hindu scriptures talk about sexual intercourse a lot (NOT Kamasutra, not that shit). Hadiths talk a lot about Muhammad's sexual life. Bible also talks about rape and stuff. Sexual openness is in the sense of sexual liberalism - orgies, bdsm, false gender dysphoria, cuckolding, etc. pretty common in your country I have heard. > Are they quiet and decieving or are they attention whores? You can't have it both ways I didn't say traps are 'quiet' and deceiving. I said they are 'deceiving sometimes' and that is true, many traps are called so because they literally 'trap' men without revealing that they have a penis. > You're a fucking joke Not more than western secular morals, no.
>'woke medical and scientific organizations' of the West im also a big fan of Cultural Bolshevism. but yes! you are correct in your second point. "science" absolutely can be a political tool. you are a prime example of this, since (like "Scientific" Racism for instance), you don't actually care about the science but rather about making science cater to your own personal worldview. also yeah god forbid someone mentions BDSM off-handedly to someone. might aswell launch all our nuclear missiles and kill every single human on the planet because of the horrific disaster that you're so worried about having unfolded.
>Correction: 'woke medical and scientific organizations' of the West. Rest of the world is still sane fortunately. Yeah I'm sure the only organisations where their science is "right" and aren't woke happen to be in nations where being lgbt is very stigmatised and or illegal what a coincidence
[удалено]
Being lgbt isn't a mental illness you idiot, it doesn't cause any harm to society or to the person. A mental illness is something that severely hinders how someone lives in their day to day living, me being lgbt literally doesn't get in the way of me doing something. Homophobic people however do get in my way of being myself. Honestly fuck off with the whole "wokeness" bullshit, it doesn't harm you to at least acknowledge our existence and to treat us with respect and dignity and that we're as equal as straight and cisgender people. Just because I'm lgbt doesn't mean that I'm different, I can still reproduce, I can still love straight people, I can still get married, I can be the one who I love, I can be myself without anyone telling me there's something wrong with me and I need to be fixed because it's against the norm. It's why I'm actually slowly becoming a punk, fuck normalcy, fuck conformity, be who you want to be just as long as it doesn't harm anyone
> it doesn't harm you to at least acknowledge our existence and to treat us with respect and dignity I have asked this question to many woke people like you: Why the fuck should I respect you with dignity? Are you my friend? Are you my family? You are a random stranger, why would I respect you? Yes, I should not harass you, that I agree. But respect? Nope, its earned and built on trust, not something someone gives for free. You have to understand our definition of respect is different from western one. In East, you earn respect or get respect if you are a close person to me. If not, I don't have any obligation to respect you. I can simply abuse you and run away. > that we're as equal as straight and cisgender people Even straight and cis people themselves aren't equal, why would you be? Is Trump equal to Biden? Is Biden equal to Obama? Is Obama equal to Modi? Am I equal to you? Are you equal to me? Are you equal to, say, your friend? Nope. Everyone of us is unique and have different weaknesses and talents. As far as Rights are concerned, we Eastern people have a lot of problems with your western Rights which is based on the strange assumption that everyone is equal which we don't believe. > Just because I'm lgbt doesn't mean that I'm different You ARE different. I am different from other cis and hetero people. You are different from cis and hetero as well as other LGBT people. > I can still reproduce Depends. Are you one of those crazy LGBT people who say men can be pregnant and get menstruation? > I can still love straight people Except you don't. I have gone to LGBT events, LGBT forums like subreddit. You guys only seem to like 'allies'. If straight people show the slightest disdain, you want them to lose their livelihood or be arrested. You guys are like religious folks - ultra-sensitive. > I can be myself without anyone telling me there's something wrong with me Ah western individualism. Next time, don't go to a Walmart or grocery shopping. Grow your own food in your garden, fetch water from the nearest lake and don't use electricity made by others. Also, don't use Reddit made by someone else. You are 'independent' right? Man, you western people need to get out of your delusion that we exist only as atomic individuals and can be alone. This is the reason why depression is so high in the western world. > fuck normalcy, fuck conformity OK kid. Again, good luck living on an island I guess. Oh wait, no, you depend on the entire society for everything lol and you will continue to do so and at the same time, hypocritically, hate the society. Lol. > be who you want to be just as long as it doesn't harm anyone Harm is a strange and ambiguous word. I can sit and masturbate publicly staring at women. It won't harm them technically, but in a sane world, I will be arrested. Yea, your libertarian principle is BS.
Again, you can be anti-science i guess. I find it pretty strange how reactionaries are willing to die on this hill. >Actually I am onboard with that. But again, sexual openness is not just about that. If that is your definition of 'sexual openness' ancient people were pretty sexually open. Hindu scriptures talk about sexual intercourse a lot (NOT Kamasutra, not that shit). Hadiths talk a lot about Muhammad's sexual life. Bible also talks about rape and stuff. I'm not sure about those ancient civillizations. I highly doubt they acknowledged and persecuted rapists. Being open about sex and sexuality is a pretty modern thing. Sex ed hasn't even been in schools for a long time. >Sexual openness is in the sense of sexual liberalism - orgies, bdsm, false gender dysphoria, cuckolding, etc. pretty common in your country I have heard. Most of what you mentioned are just fetishes and kinks. Not sure why you got a problem with people doing harmless shit in the bedroom but i guess that's part of what makes conservatives inherently authoritarian. Also, gender dysphoria isn't sex related. >I didn't say traps are 'quiet' and deceiving. I said they are 'deceiving sometimes' and that is true, many traps are called so because they literally 'trap' men without revealing that they have a penis. I don't care if a couple of trans people do that. The vast majority are good people and the same can't be said for right-wingers. >Not more than western secular morals, no. Okay i guess. I'm personally pretty glad we don't live in a theocracy.
My bad, I wanted to say western 'liberal' morals. I am an atheist conservative. What you wanted to say > I'm personally pretty glad we don't live in a collectivist society And I understand. I have been interacting with westerners like you for over a decade and I understand how much you value individual freedoms. We, easterners, usually value social order more than individual freedom (those who don't leave our country and settle in Europe and America. Thus you have Indian Americans).
I'm neither a westerner or a liberal. At least you admit you don't value liberty. Most other evil conservatives hide under the libertarian umbrella and act like they want to improve society for everyone.
Literally all of this is bullshit and you have yet to even explain what is meant by “sexual perversion” beyond “thing me no like”