4 ms·

> I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists. You say you're part of several vulnerable populations, but you don't ask the world to "accomm

> I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists. You say you're part of several vulnerable populations, but you don't ask the world to "accommodate" you - but the complains trans people have about Chappelle are not about 'making their lives easier.' Where transphobia (or any prejudicial viewpoint) comes into play is refusing to take vulnerable populations' viewpoints seriously. When trans people point out that they are at much greater risk of violence and also point out studies on how rhetoric contributes to dehumanization promotes violence - you need to take the idea that this isn't "what comedians do" because the impact of saying things about different groups will be different. Transphobia isn't "disagreeing with trans people" - in this case it's not taking peoples' views seriously because they are trans. When you say "I have problems too but I don't bother people about it" - you suggest that your problems are similar to trans peoples'. It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions, but trans people have far fewer protections[1]. Considering that Texas just recently criminalized being trans under the age of 18, I would really ask you to consider if that view is correct and how it makes you look to say it. Edit: I got a little ramble-y - in general: oppression is possible when vulnerable populations' descriptions of why and how they are treated worse are not taken seriously. People in vulnerable populations can be wrong (like all of us!) - but in order to point that out in a way that doesn't promote oppression you have to start your disagreement from a point where what you are disagreeing with is a position that the vulnerable population agrees they hold. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/depression-ptsd-other-mental-health-conditions-workplace-your-legal-rights https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/depression-ptsd-other-men...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
shephardjhon 4y ago
I agree with your points but his particular joke was about transphobia vs racism. That trans and gay people can turn on their white privilage in a second to attack black people, including using cops to attack black people, knowing cops are trained to fear black people and use excessive force against them. Of course he isnt taking into account people who are both black and trans but in only this one case, you need to actually understand the joke first. All that said, Netflix is also wrong because as employees of Netflix the people will be linked to this content weather they like it or not and it doesnt matter what content you are talking about weather its The Bodyguard(Islamophobic), Dave Chapelle(Transphobia), Squid Game(anti capatilist or anti communist depending on whi you ask) or probably the worst, Cuties(GOP and Qanon has diluted this word, but pedophilia). If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved. Overall this is a complex issue with multiple layers and I say this all as a hardcore leftist.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved. Like working for a tobacco company, your name and reputation will be tarnished by that association. The solution is obvious: don't work for that company. Or maybe Netflix will start to implement solutions like those used by the pornography industry; hire sys admins, programmers etc under a shell company that doesn't share the name of the main business. So rather than putting "Software Developer at Pornhub.com" on your resume, you can put tell people you worked for "MindGeek".
h3cate 4y ago
I don't think it's in a comedians job description to take anything seriously
okareaman 4y ago
You're bringing the law into this but I'm not. That's a different issue. I support laws for trans people to have equal rights. The world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that. Just last night I was watching Amazon's Bosch and the lead character called someone a "worthless alcoholic." As Vonnegut used to write, "so it goes."
- aeturnum 4y ago
  I mean, fair enough, we can set the law aside. Again, my point is that trans people are not complaining about "people saying negative things" in a vacuum. They are complaining about a specific situation that is happening which goes beyond just the context of the Chapelle special. I don't believe you are actually responding to the most common trans critique of Chapelle and, in not doing that, you dismiss the actual critiques they are making. Let me put it this way: we don't have to agree about if the Chapelle special is a problem (I don't happen to worry too much about it but I understand why people are angry). But, I want you to imagine that the loudest and most alarmist trans folks are correct - Chapelle is helping a trend of violence against trans people. If that were the case (which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there) disagreeing with them would be supporting violence against them. The best way, in my view, to avoid accidentally supporting that kind of thing is to start your personal thoughts (and public arguments) from the POV of the vulnerable community. That's how we can all avoid accidentally erasing an important critique.
  - mpalmer 4y ago
    So...assume the most extreme views are correct and start forming our own personal thoughts based on this assumption. Just in case they do turn out to be correct. I'm just not buying that. Side note: I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".
    - fsociety 4y ago
      If you want to see the TERF mindset, and I recognize that the word is thrown around too easily, check out Lily Cade’s speech against trans people. It does advocate for violence. There are also very real statistics and accounts of violence against trans people. The numbers are shy in comparison to COVID deaths, but you have to account for the number of people who do transition and do not hide it. Is this priority #1 in the world? No. But we could all show some more god damned humanity to people.
ipspam 4y ago
- bryans 4y ago
  - ipspam 4y ago
    - kX4A8o4mVmX8aW 4y ago
  - ipspam 4y ago
    - bryans 4y ago
vba616 4y ago
>It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions If the mentally ill are so privileged, it's ironic that people have fought for generations to not be defined as such (e.g. in the DSM).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

shephardjhon 4y ago

I agree with your points but his particular joke was about transphobia vs racism. That trans and gay people can turn on their white privilage in a second to attack black people, including using cops to attack black people, knowing cops are trained to fear black people and use excessive force against them. Of course he isnt taking into account people who are both black and trans but in only this one case, you need to actually understand the joke first. All that said, Netflix is also wrong because as employees of Netflix the people will be linked to this content weather they like it or not and it doesnt matter what content you are talking about weather its The Bodyguard(Islamophobic), Dave Chapelle(Transphobia), Squid Game(anti capatilist or anti communist depending on whi you ask) or probably the worst, Cuties(GOP and Qanon has diluted this word, but pedophilia). If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved. Overall this is a complex issue with multiple layers and I say this all as a hardcore leftist.

robonerd 4y ago
> If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved. Like working for a tobacco company, your name and reputation will be tarnished by that association. The solution is obvious: don't work for that company. Or maybe Netflix will start to implement solutions like those used by the pornography industry; hire sys admins, programmers etc under a shell company that doesn't share the name of the main business. So rather than putting "Software Developer at Pornhub.com" on your resume, you can put tell people you worked for "MindGeek".

h3cate 4y ago

I don't think it's in a comedians job description to take anything seriously

okareaman 4y ago

You're bringing the law into this but I'm not. That's a different issue. I support laws for trans people to have equal rights. The world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that. Just last night I was watching Amazon's Bosch and the lead character called someone a "worthless alcoholic." As Vonnegut used to write, "so it goes."

aeturnum 4y ago
I mean, fair enough, we can set the law aside. Again, my point is that trans people are not complaining about "people saying negative things" in a vacuum. They are complaining about a specific situation that is happening which goes beyond just the context of the Chapelle special. I don't believe you are actually responding to the most common trans critique of Chapelle and, in not doing that, you dismiss the actual critiques they are making. Let me put it this way: we don't have to agree about if the Chapelle special is a problem (I don't happen to worry too much about it but I understand why people are angry). But, I want you to imagine that the loudest and most alarmist trans folks are correct - Chapelle is helping a trend of violence against trans people. If that were the case (which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there) disagreeing with them would be supporting violence against them. The best way, in my view, to avoid accidentally supporting that kind of thing is to start your personal thoughts (and public arguments) from the POV of the vulnerable community. That's how we can all avoid accidentally erasing an important critique.
- mpalmer 4y ago
  So...assume the most extreme views are correct and start forming our own personal thoughts based on this assumption. Just in case they do turn out to be correct. I'm just not buying that. Side note: I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".
  - fsociety 4y ago
    If you want to see the TERF mindset, and I recognize that the word is thrown around too easily, check out Lily Cade’s speech against trans people. It does advocate for violence. There are also very real statistics and accounts of violence against trans people. The numbers are shy in comparison to COVID deaths, but you have to account for the number of people who do transition and do not hide it. Is this priority #1 in the world? No. But we could all show some more god damned humanity to people.

ipspam 4y ago

bryans 4y ago
- ipspam 4y ago
  - kX4A8o4mVmX8aW 4y ago
- ipspam 4y ago
  - bryans 4y ago

vba616 4y ago

>It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions If the mentally ill are so privileged, it's ironic that people have fought for generations to not be defined as such (e.g. in the DSM).