15 ms·

(hopefully) relevant perspective from a transgender person: It is irrelevant to me that most people are not extremists. There are a lot of "non-extremist" peopl

(hopefully) relevant perspective from a transgender person: It is irrelevant to me that most people are not extremists. There are a lot of "non-extremist" people who consider me a loon because of my appearance and gender. Those people seem to get along perfectly fine with "moderates" who are more accepting of me... and that really doesn't help, because the typical result is that both of them will agree to treat me as an extremist. For existing.

twofornone 4y ago
a_shovel 4y ago
Yeah, that's my position as well. People make fun of leftists for infighting and "cancel culture" and "eating their own", but the alternative seems to be allowing the worst parts of "your side" to keep and even expand their influence over the political landscape, and that seems to be what the right has done.
- Shish2k 4y ago
  This is what happens with a first-past-the-post voting system — you agree to band together behind your side’s resident extremist, or you lose :/
zmgsabst 4y ago
I think that’s because you don’t denounce actual extremists within the transgender movement. I think you’re conflating both groups denouncing those extremists as denouncing you, because those extremists are who represents your group on the mainstream narrative.
- banannaise 4y ago
  So now I'm supposed to spend my time proving that I'm mainstream enough to be acceptable, because my existence makes me guilty by association? This is the "Black people should have no issue proving they aren't criminals" argument. Also, transgender people aren't a movement. We're people.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    > Also, transgender people aren't a movement. We're people. I’m not saying it’s fair or right… But transgender people are a minority whose voice has been appropriated by a political movement to force their radical agenda under euphemisms like “inclusion”. I’m not saying that you need to be outspoken about it — but if the only exposure most people have is that extremist view from TV, they will associate you with that due to how humans work. > "Black people should have no issue proving they aren't criminals" The equivalent would be black people debouncing the neo-racism of Democrats under euphemisms like “equity” and publicly denouncing nonsense done in their name, like de-policing. Again, I’m not saying it’s fair or right… but I’d tell a black Democrat who was upset about being associated with that idiocy the same thing: You’re tacitly letting your identity be used to push dumb policies — and you’ll be associated until you stand up and say “no, this doesn’t represent me”.
    - arkaniad 4y ago
      Radical agenda like... being able to safely receive healthcare? Being safe from violence? Being able to grow into a happy and successful human being? Ah, but yes, you're right, that's preposterous.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - rocef 4y ago
    - banannaise 4y ago
      You're using a thin facade of decorum to push the idea that the oppression of minorities is their own fault, with the strong implication that you have nothing to do with it because that's just the way the world works. How am I personally responsible by association for the actions of others, while you aren't? And again, am I supposed to be out here actively looking for people and views to disavow? Do I have to do this in front of everyone I meet, so then they'll be sure I'm one of the good ones and they can treat me like a normal person?
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Sad to say, but I think this is both (1) fairly true, and (2) a sign that the world we live in is fairly f*cked up. I'm free to identify as a white male American, without needing to immediately denounce a laundry list - ..., NAMBLA, Nathaniel Hawthorn's ancestors, Nazi sympathizers, negro slavery, NIN's substance abuse, ... - of notorious positions, people, and practices which are publicly associated with white males Americans. I have noticed that even the L and G (to say nothing of BTQ+) folks who've come out to me in the past 10 years have added "but I am nothing like those {unfavorable words here} who proclaim themselves L's or G's on the web" - generally so fast that I couldn't have gotten a word in edgewise.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- watwut 4y ago
  I don't see non extremist anti-trans to condem extremists in their ranks. Ever. Nor conservatives for that matter. Until that is requirement for then too, then this just amounts to support for anti trans extremists.
- antifa 4y ago
  It's not clear to me what you're referring to as "extremists" or by "transgender movement", because at this point that could mean a lot of things that almost don't even exist or it could just mean "anything I don't like". But even if it did refer to actually existing extremism, presuming a trans person should know about a sub-category of extremists that happen to be trans and make unprompted verbal attacks against them just to signal some kind of virtue at is a pretty weird demand of compelled speech on your part. This kind of shameless bigotry and stereotyping is pretty transparent.
giantg2 4y ago
"There are a lot of "non-extremist" people who consider me a loon because of my appearance and gender. Those people seem to get along perfectly fine with "moderates" who are more accepting of me... and that really doesn't help, because the typical result is that both of them will agree to treat me as an extremist." I'm curious, why would these people not be considered extreme for treating you like a loon or treating you as an extremist? I've seen similar stuff on other issues. For example, there are people who hate guns who treat gun owners as loons and extremists regardless of their actions/positions/etc. Just saying that some people treat others as extremists just because they hold an opposing view. My guess is it's often to prevent cognitive dissonance in examining their own beliefs (most people don't consider themselves extremists even if they hold extreme views).
- banannaise 4y ago
  I think you're on to something here, but my (admittedly anecdotal) experience (in person, not online) is that these people are not generally considered extremist. You make a very good point in your last sentence: this extremist view is held by a lot of people who are otherwise non-extremist, and it's hard for most people to differentiate between "extremist views" and "extremist people". So it ends up being considered much less extremist than it should be, which also means it gets much more mainstream acceptance than it should.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Yeah, you said it better than I did.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
And I encourage everyone to keep whatever circles make them happy. But if a devout Christian said she doesn't like anyone who hangs out with atheists, or a meat-eater said he doesn't like anyone who hangs out with vegans, I don't think you'd struggle to identify these as extremist attitudes. The expectation that a person is guaranteed to mistreat me if any of their friends disapproves of me or think I'm a loon seems like a clear example of miscalibrated contempt.
hedora 4y ago
I could say everything you said, as a person hoping the planet will remain habitable for my children. (Substitute the bit about appearance with "because I think we should immediately stop new fossil fuel exploration / capital investment and institute atmospheric carbon recapture taxes of $1-2 per gallon-of-gasoline-equivalent emissions") Anyway, I think the premise of the article is flawed: I don't care whether voters in some red state are queer-bashing, abortion-banning putin apologists that want to strip mine for coal. (Want them for neighbors, or not? Move!) I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things, and this planet is not large enough to let the rest of us escape from their idiocy.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things... Do you care whether this belief (which may have the appearance of knowledge) is objectively and flawlessly true?
  - watwut 4y ago
    The abortion banning part is provably true at this point. And it is very fair to guess it was plan from the start, despite pretention not. Despite calling those who guesses it 100% correctly exaggerating and hysterical.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      The claim was: >> I don't care whether voters in some red state are queer-bashing, abortion-banning putin apologists that want to strip mine for coal. (Want them for neighbors, or not? Move!) >> I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things > The abortion banning part is provably true at this point. a) Not comprehensively for all people, as was claimed. b) It is supreme court justices that would be banning it, not elected representatives. c) How might one prove it for any given elected representative, short of an explicit confession? d) Abortion banning wasn't the only claim. > And it is very fair to guess it was plan from the start, despite pretention not. "Fair to say" and "correct/true" are very different things. > Despite calling those who guesses it 100% correctly exaggerating and hysterical. Where "100% correctly" refers to perception of reality, but is typically perceived as reality itself. Human beings are silly, I would say without exception - News at 11.

twofornone 4y ago

a_shovel 4y ago

Yeah, that's my position as well. People make fun of leftists for infighting and "cancel culture" and "eating their own", but the alternative seems to be allowing the worst parts of "your side" to keep and even expand their influence over the political landscape, and that seems to be what the right has done.

Shish2k 4y ago
This is what happens with a first-past-the-post voting system — you agree to band together behind your side’s resident extremist, or you lose :/

zmgsabst 4y ago

I think that’s because you don’t denounce actual extremists within the transgender movement. I think you’re conflating both groups denouncing those extremists as denouncing you, because those extremists are who represents your group on the mainstream narrative.

banannaise 4y ago
So now I'm supposed to spend my time proving that I'm mainstream enough to be acceptable, because my existence makes me guilty by association? This is the "Black people should have no issue proving they aren't criminals" argument. Also, transgender people aren't a movement. We're people.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  > Also, transgender people aren't a movement. We're people. I’m not saying it’s fair or right… But transgender people are a minority whose voice has been appropriated by a political movement to force their radical agenda under euphemisms like “inclusion”. I’m not saying that you need to be outspoken about it — but if the only exposure most people have is that extremist view from TV, they will associate you with that due to how humans work. > "Black people should have no issue proving they aren't criminals" The equivalent would be black people debouncing the neo-racism of Democrats under euphemisms like “equity” and publicly denouncing nonsense done in their name, like de-policing. Again, I’m not saying it’s fair or right… but I’d tell a black Democrat who was upset about being associated with that idiocy the same thing: You’re tacitly letting your identity be used to push dumb policies — and you’ll be associated until you stand up and say “no, this doesn’t represent me”.
  - arkaniad 4y ago
    Radical agenda like... being able to safely receive healthcare? Being safe from violence? Being able to grow into a happy and successful human being? Ah, but yes, you're right, that's preposterous.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - rocef 4y ago
  - banannaise 4y ago
    You're using a thin facade of decorum to push the idea that the oppression of minorities is their own fault, with the strong implication that you have nothing to do with it because that's just the way the world works. How am I personally responsible by association for the actions of others, while you aren't? And again, am I supposed to be out here actively looking for people and views to disavow? Do I have to do this in front of everyone I meet, so then they'll be sure I'm one of the good ones and they can treat me like a normal person?
bell-cot 4y ago
Sad to say, but I think this is both (1) fairly true, and (2) a sign that the world we live in is fairly f*cked up. I'm free to identify as a white male American, without needing to immediately denounce a laundry list - ..., NAMBLA, Nathaniel Hawthorn's ancestors, Nazi sympathizers, negro slavery, NIN's substance abuse, ... - of notorious positions, people, and practices which are publicly associated with white males Americans. I have noticed that even the L and G (to say nothing of BTQ+) folks who've come out to me in the past 10 years have added "but I am nothing like those {unfavorable words here} who proclaim themselves L's or G's on the web" - generally so fast that I couldn't have gotten a word in edgewise.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
watwut 4y ago
I don't see non extremist anti-trans to condem extremists in their ranks. Ever. Nor conservatives for that matter. Until that is requirement for then too, then this just amounts to support for anti trans extremists.
antifa 4y ago
It's not clear to me what you're referring to as "extremists" or by "transgender movement", because at this point that could mean a lot of things that almost don't even exist or it could just mean "anything I don't like". But even if it did refer to actually existing extremism, presuming a trans person should know about a sub-category of extremists that happen to be trans and make unprompted verbal attacks against them just to signal some kind of virtue at is a pretty weird demand of compelled speech on your part. This kind of shameless bigotry and stereotyping is pretty transparent.

giantg2 4y ago

"There are a lot of "non-extremist" people who consider me a loon because of my appearance and gender. Those people seem to get along perfectly fine with "moderates" who are more accepting of me... and that really doesn't help, because the typical result is that both of them will agree to treat me as an extremist." I'm curious, why would these people not be considered extreme for treating you like a loon or treating you as an extremist? I've seen similar stuff on other issues. For example, there are people who hate guns who treat gun owners as loons and extremists regardless of their actions/positions/etc. Just saying that some people treat others as extremists just because they hold an opposing view. My guess is it's often to prevent cognitive dissonance in examining their own beliefs (most people don't consider themselves extremists even if they hold extreme views).

banannaise 4y ago
I think you're on to something here, but my (admittedly anecdotal) experience (in person, not online) is that these people are not generally considered extremist. You make a very good point in your last sentence: this extremist view is held by a lot of people who are otherwise non-extremist, and it's hard for most people to differentiate between "extremist views" and "extremist people". So it ends up being considered much less extremist than it should be, which also means it gets much more mainstream acceptance than it should.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Yeah, you said it better than I did.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

And I encourage everyone to keep whatever circles make them happy. But if a devout Christian said she doesn't like anyone who hangs out with atheists, or a meat-eater said he doesn't like anyone who hangs out with vegans, I don't think you'd struggle to identify these as extremist attitudes. The expectation that a person is guaranteed to mistreat me if any of their friends disapproves of me or think I'm a loon seems like a clear example of miscalibrated contempt.

hedora 4y ago

I could say everything you said, as a person hoping the planet will remain habitable for my children. (Substitute the bit about appearance with "because I think we should immediately stop new fossil fuel exploration / capital investment and institute atmospheric carbon recapture taxes of $1-2 per gallon-of-gasoline-equivalent emissions") Anyway, I think the premise of the article is flawed: I don't care whether voters in some red state are queer-bashing, abortion-banning putin apologists that want to strip mine for coal. (Want them for neighbors, or not? Move!) I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things, and this planet is not large enough to let the rest of us escape from their idiocy.

mistermann 4y ago
> I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things... Do you care whether this belief (which may have the appearance of knowledge) is objectively and flawlessly true?
- watwut 4y ago
  The abortion banning part is provably true at this point. And it is very fair to guess it was plan from the start, despite pretention not. Despite calling those who guesses it 100% correctly exaggerating and hysterical.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    The claim was: >> I don't care whether voters in some red state are queer-bashing, abortion-banning putin apologists that want to strip mine for coal. (Want them for neighbors, or not? Move!) >> I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things > The abortion banning part is provably true at this point. a) Not comprehensively for all people, as was claimed. b) It is supreme court justices that would be banning it, not elected representatives. c) How might one prove it for any given elected representative, short of an explicit confession? d) Abortion banning wasn't the only claim. > And it is very fair to guess it was plan from the start, despite pretention not. "Fair to say" and "correct/true" are very different things. > Despite calling those who guesses it 100% correctly exaggerating and hysterical. Where "100% correctly" refers to perception of reality, but is typically perceived as reality itself. Human beings are silly, I would say without exception - News at 11.