6 ms·

It's generally quite hard for a trans person to be civil with a transphobe. Just as it's hard for e.g. black people to be civil with a racist. The bigot will, w

It's generally quite hard for a trans person to be civil with a transphobe. Just as it's hard for e.g. black people to be civil with a racist. The bigot will, whether conscious or not, make the life of the minority absolutely terrible. With LGBTQ it is therefore not just a difference of opinion on taxation, or a few percentage points difference in a tariff. For trans people it's about whether the other person even acknowledges that you can be trans.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Let's throw in a more complex example. Is someone who identifies as a "trap" trans? Is that self identification trans-phobic? Is it a valid self identity? What if someone identifies as a "trap" but not trans?
- progman32 5y ago
  Could you clarify your point? Not sure I follow.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    If given a topic like "lgbtq" issues, the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Nobody is actually having that debate anymore and you're fighting straw men. Ie, these debates are not between "pro-lgbtq" and "anti-lgbtq". Instead most of these debates are more nuanced and complicated. I picked the "trap" debate because it's hotly contested, with both sides swearing up and down they are pro-lgbtq and both sides would even claim to be more pro-lgbtq than their opponents. Which is to say, you can probably ignore the debate and not care, still be pro-lgbtq, and go back to playing your board game, even with friends who have a different ideological position on that particular debate. A lot of social media fights are about this scale.
    - progman32 5y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I think mutual respect also plays a part here. My respect, demeanor towards, and willingness to play Settlers with someone who believes LGBTQIA+ people are sinners depends a lot on whether or not that person engages in honest, consensual debate and respects the human on the other side. That is how we form good relationships and strengthen our collective understanding. I wish to underscore the importance of consensual debate, especially when there's a power gradient. I will say though, "Do gay people get basic rights" is _very much_ still a subject of debate. Sadly.
    - ladyattis 5y ago
      >If given a topic like "lgbtq" issues, the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Eeh, it's still "do gay people get basic rights" for many even in the United States. I've seen folks have last wills overturned by family through insidious legal maneuvers. I've seen doctors refuse to contact patients with biopsy results because their patients were trans. And I've seen folks even withhold paychecks from LGBT folks because of their religious nonsense. So, basic rights are still a matter of contention until it becomes not merely a legal formality that LGBT folks are equal under the law but that the entire population does not even think that they have a chance to violate those formalities and that they feel bad about thinking of doing such a thing. Until that happens, LGBT discussions will always go back to "do gay people have basic rights?".
    - fknorangesite 5y ago
      > the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Nobody is actually having that debate anymore On the contrary: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-governor-calls-citizens-report-parents-transgender-kids-abuse-rcna17455 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texa...
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  I've never heard of anyone identifying as a "trap" unironically. This sounds like a straw man. I would equate a trans woman calling themselves a trap to being the same as a black person calling themselves the N word. It's a way of taking back a slur.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    This was such a hot debate on a set of subreddits it caused a collapse of a huge subreddit, the ousting of a powermod, and several spinoff subreddits. Admittedly it was a few years ago, but it was an interesting fight to watch from the sidelines. My preference here is to refer to people however they want to be referred to. When I adopted that view, I thought it was very safe but it has actually landed me in hot water many times. I still stand by it though.
    - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
      A person referring to themselves using a common slur does not mean they want others to refer to them as that.
      - vorpalhex 5y ago
        To hundreds of thousands of people who use that as an identity, it is not a slur.
        hedgewitch 5y ago
        You can call whatever this bizarre and obviously false claim is what you want, but this entire subthread is very transparently an attempt to justify using a slur. It has very "why can't I say the n word" energy.
        saagarjha 5y ago
        This is an extremely poor faith interpretation of a reasonable argument: if someone asks me to call them a word that is often perceived as a slur, because they belong to a member of that group and would like to "reclaim" it, should I do so? Am I being racist by using the word? This is not a clear question like you present it to be, and has absolutely nothing to do with an inherent desire to use slurs against marginalized people.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  That's more a problem of vagueness and guessing than real complexity, because it's slang with unclear/multiple meanings. Some people use "trap" to mean transgender, some people use it to mean transvestite. Everything beyond that is based on intent.
gedy 5y ago
Issue is usually in defining terms like 'transphobe' - I've encountered folks who define that as someone who wouldn't be willing to sleep with or be attracted to a trans person in the same way as a biological female. I think that's an example of an area people are just going to have to agree to disagree.
- ratww 5y ago
  That's a bit of a strawman. That's not transphobic. Nobody is obligated to have sex with anyone, trans or cis, period. That's not even up for discussion. If one, however, goes out of their way to harass transexual people when stating this preference, then yeah, it's a bit transphobic. Intention matters.
  - mecha_ghidorah 5y ago
    I did just literally get into an argument with an acquaintance last week because she was insisting that it was not an ok or valid thing for someone to not want to date trans women as a category if they were ok with dating women. So I wouldn't call it a strawman. I'd say it is a probably a minority position but it is a genuinely held one
    - progman32 5y ago
      That's an interesting take. Do you recall their points? I wonder what their position is towards someone who prefers trans people.
      - mecha_ghidorah 5y ago
        > I wonder what their position is towards someone who prefers trans people. They'd consider it fetishism, unless said person was also trans and only preferred other trans people because of wanting that shared life experience. Their point was that thinking of trans women as different to women as a group was inherently bigoted.
    - ratww 5y ago

vorpalhex 5y ago

Let's throw in a more complex example. Is someone who identifies as a "trap" trans? Is that self identification trans-phobic? Is it a valid self identity? What if someone identifies as a "trap" but not trans?

progman32 5y ago
Could you clarify your point? Not sure I follow.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  If given a topic like "lgbtq" issues, the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Nobody is actually having that debate anymore and you're fighting straw men. Ie, these debates are not between "pro-lgbtq" and "anti-lgbtq". Instead most of these debates are more nuanced and complicated. I picked the "trap" debate because it's hotly contested, with both sides swearing up and down they are pro-lgbtq and both sides would even claim to be more pro-lgbtq than their opponents. Which is to say, you can probably ignore the debate and not care, still be pro-lgbtq, and go back to playing your board game, even with friends who have a different ideological position on that particular debate. A lot of social media fights are about this scale.
  - progman32 5y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I think mutual respect also plays a part here. My respect, demeanor towards, and willingness to play Settlers with someone who believes LGBTQIA+ people are sinners depends a lot on whether or not that person engages in honest, consensual debate and respects the human on the other side. That is how we form good relationships and strengthen our collective understanding. I wish to underscore the importance of consensual debate, especially when there's a power gradient. I will say though, "Do gay people get basic rights" is _very much_ still a subject of debate. Sadly.
  - ladyattis 5y ago
    >If given a topic like "lgbtq" issues, the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Eeh, it's still "do gay people get basic rights" for many even in the United States. I've seen folks have last wills overturned by family through insidious legal maneuvers. I've seen doctors refuse to contact patients with biopsy results because their patients were trans. And I've seen folks even withhold paychecks from LGBT folks because of their religious nonsense. So, basic rights are still a matter of contention until it becomes not merely a legal formality that LGBT folks are equal under the law but that the entire population does not even think that they have a chance to violate those formalities and that they feel bad about thinking of doing such a thing. Until that happens, LGBT discussions will always go back to "do gay people have basic rights?".
  - fknorangesite 5y ago
    > the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Nobody is actually having that debate anymore On the contrary: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-governor-calls-citizens-report-parents-transgender-kids-abuse-rcna17455 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texa...
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
I've never heard of anyone identifying as a "trap" unironically. This sounds like a straw man. I would equate a trans woman calling themselves a trap to being the same as a black person calling themselves the N word. It's a way of taking back a slur.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  This was such a hot debate on a set of subreddits it caused a collapse of a huge subreddit, the ousting of a powermod, and several spinoff subreddits. Admittedly it was a few years ago, but it was an interesting fight to watch from the sidelines. My preference here is to refer to people however they want to be referred to. When I adopted that view, I thought it was very safe but it has actually landed me in hot water many times. I still stand by it though.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    A person referring to themselves using a common slur does not mean they want others to refer to them as that.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      To hundreds of thousands of people who use that as an identity, it is not a slur.
      - hedgewitch 5y ago
        You can call whatever this bizarre and obviously false claim is what you want, but this entire subthread is very transparently an attempt to justify using a slur. It has very "why can't I say the n word" energy.
        saagarjha 5y ago
        This is an extremely poor faith interpretation of a reasonable argument: if someone asks me to call them a word that is often perceived as a slur, because they belong to a member of that group and would like to "reclaim" it, should I do so? Am I being racist by using the word? This is not a clear question like you present it to be, and has absolutely nothing to do with an inherent desire to use slurs against marginalized people.
Dylan16807 5y ago
That's more a problem of vagueness and guessing than real complexity, because it's slang with unclear/multiple meanings. Some people use "trap" to mean transgender, some people use it to mean transvestite. Everything beyond that is based on intent.

gedy 5y ago

Issue is usually in defining terms like 'transphobe' - I've encountered folks who define that as someone who wouldn't be willing to sleep with or be attracted to a trans person in the same way as a biological female. I think that's an example of an area people are just going to have to agree to disagree.

ratww 5y ago
That's a bit of a strawman. That's not transphobic. Nobody is obligated to have sex with anyone, trans or cis, period. That's not even up for discussion. If one, however, goes out of their way to harass transexual people when stating this preference, then yeah, it's a bit transphobic. Intention matters.
- mecha_ghidorah 5y ago
  I did just literally get into an argument with an acquaintance last week because she was insisting that it was not an ok or valid thing for someone to not want to date trans women as a category if they were ok with dating women. So I wouldn't call it a strawman. I'd say it is a probably a minority position but it is a genuinely held one
  - progman32 5y ago
    That's an interesting take. Do you recall their points? I wonder what their position is towards someone who prefers trans people.
    - mecha_ghidorah 5y ago
      > I wonder what their position is towards someone who prefers trans people. They'd consider it fetishism, unless said person was also trans and only preferred other trans people because of wanting that shared life experience. Their point was that thinking of trans women as different to women as a group was inherently bigoted.
  - ratww 5y ago