4 ms·

I respect that viewpoint and would be happy to adopt it in different times. But it's not as simple as political tribalism. For example - Several of my close f

I respect that viewpoint and would be happy to adopt it in different times. But it's not as simple as political tribalism. For example - Several of my close friends are trans. For the last decade or so, Republicans have been viciously attacking trans people and several states are actively taking away their rights. The entire right wing media ecosystem uses every chance they can to demonize trans people in the new culture war. After years of these horrible attacks, we're seeing hate crimes against trans people rise. At least two of my friends have been assaulted in the last year or so. How can I fault them for having a gut reaction to not engage with Republicans? And if someone is still happy to call themselves a Republican after all this hate, I think that reflects something about their character. Obviously if I were to vote for Republicans who want to hurt my trans friends (which is almost all of them), I could never look them in the eyes again. Similarly, I can't have much respect for those who do. The life and safety of my friends and family is the most important thing to me. I am happy to engage in good faith dialogue with conservatives on these topics, but frankly, if I'm out and doing something I enjoy, I'd generally rather not spoil my time talking to someone who is statistically likely to be a hateful bigot.

djom 2y ago
[flagged]
- diputsmonro 2y ago
  I don't want to get into a giant political debate here, but I would urge you to follow the spirit of this post and actually talk to some trans people, in person, to get their perspective before voting for people who demonize them and take their rights away. All of those are rooted in transphobia. The entire point of those bathroom bills to "protect women" is built upon the foundational idea that trans people are dangerous predators who want to assault people. It's a bigoted idea not supported by the data, which is built out of fear, and - appropriate to this whole post - a lack of understanding from never having actually talked to a trans person.
  - djom 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - muffinman26 2y ago
      Do you realize that these laws that are supposed to "protect women" mean that I, a trans guy who was assigned female at birth but now have a full beard and look completely male in any clothes considered acceptable in public settings, am required to use the women's restroom and changing rooms in Florida? Is forcing an angry (trans) man to use the women's restroom your idea of "protecting women's spaces"?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - djom 2y ago
        [flagged]
        slater 2y ago
        [flagged]
        witches 2y ago
        [flagged]
        slater 2y ago
        [flagged]
        witches 2y ago
        [flagged]
saulpw 2y ago
There are people who vote Republican in private, and they are different from those who loudly proclaim their Republicanism to everyone they encounter. It might be a shame that the private Republicans vote how they do, but that doesn't have to affect their ability to engage with trans people, or vice versa. So I would say the problem is not the ideological divide per se, but the 'identity' politics which makes both sides openly intolerable to each other. Of course, it's problematic because trans people can't keep private in their transness at a game of cards in the way that a radical socialist could. But in modern discourse, we're all encouraged to be loud and proud in order to advance our preferred politics, instead of quiet and demure in order to foster community that transcends politics.
- diputsmonro 2y ago
  > ...but that doesn't have to affect their ability to engage with trans people, or vice versa. I disagree. How am I supposed to trust and feel safe around someone who knowingly voted for a politician who loudly campaigned on removing my rights and demonizing my very existence? A politician who supports an esoteric policy that disadvantages me in some way is entirely different than one who loudly and plainly says that I am less human and should have fewer rights than others. That rhetoric kills people. And it's not a deal-breaker for you? I cannot call such a person a friend. A vote for a Republican in modern times is an expression to trans people that their rights and safety are less important to you than whatever esoteric tax policy or whatever than won your vote. You can value that policy more than the rights of trans people if you want, that's your prerogative. But it will make trans people and their allies trust you a lot less when they discover that you think their rights are just a bargaining chip to be traded away, and justifiably so. What other situations are you willing to throw them under the bus over, not just in politics, but in life? It's not just a matter of pride or preference, but a matter of rights and safety.
  - saulpw 2y ago
    Bingo. I'm afraid, internet stranger, that you are part of the problem here. The original topic for this thread was about "community" and the mental health crisis. Community brings diverse people into contact with each other, which fosters communication and thus has the potential to heal division and increase empathy. Do you not realize that a lot of people think that abortion is literally murder? That voting for the pro-choice candidate will kill more babies each year than there are trans people? Regardless of how correct you think they are, they also think this is a matter of rights and safety, of life and death. It may be hard to understand, but they believe this as strongly and fervently as you believe what you do. Now you tell me, without some mechanism to bring people of such disparate views together, how does this resolve? An acrimonious dissolution into a red nation and a blue nation? A civil war in which we both try to snuff out opposing views with violence? (Wouldn't that be ironic?) At best, you want your side to win, in perpetuity, until the current generation of bad-ists has died off and your views prevail. But as we see, that doesn't happen. The "bad" views continue to be transmitted from generation to generation, fomented by political opportunists, and then we are at constant risk of "their side" prevailing in perpetuity. You think 2028 or 2032 will be any better? The only way people change their minds is by coming into contact with other people with different viewpoints over a long period of time. But that involves actual relationships, not beating someone into submission with well-reasoned arguments. (Think about how well that works on you!) And you can't have any kind of relationship if you dismiss a citizen out-of-hand because of how they voted. So you want to make a real difference? Stop being so loud about who you can't be friends with. Don't ask your co-workers about their politics; it's a waste of energy. Talk with your relatives about their actual problems, and steer the conversation away from political rhetoric. Pretend like you want to be a part of humanity instead of apart from it.
y-c-o-m-b 2y ago
> How can I fault them for having a gut reaction to not engage with Republicans? And if someone is still happy to call themselves a Republican after all this hate, I think that reflects something about their character. Yes and sometimes it's worth peeling back the layers to find out why they are embodying that character. An offensive strategy creates a defensive response, nothing will ever get resolved that way; it only creates more hostility. Instead, I invest time into knowing what makes that person so stubbornly that way while re-asserting the fact that I do not hold the same values. In at least a few of those cases, those people turned around to become more open to the LGBTQ+ community despite still holding onto their Republican status. That's a win in my book because it's slowly getting them to think more independently. One of my friends was homophobic and would often make homophobic slurs "he's wearing f*g sandals". Instead of telling him he's a bad person or laugh along with him to avoid making things uncomfortable, I simply reiterate that I have no issues with people identifying as gay because what people do in their lives is none of my business. I let him know that I've made friends with gay men and never had one make me uncomfortable or feel like they overstepped boundaries; I know that idea is sometimes what makes straight men afraid of gay men. It took some time, but one day he finally let out that he had a weird uncle that would touch little boys and that's what he associates the LGBTQ+ community with. To which I gently pointed out why it's irrational. He's finally starting to come around now. Recently he'd been heard saying he's ok if his daughter ever turned out to be a lesbian. Small step in the right direction...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pfannkuchen 2y ago
I mean, the label of the group is “conservative”. Trans acceptance and the explosion in trans identifying individuals is objectively a change in the social order, which by definition will be opposed by those seeking to conserve the existing social order. Conservatives don’t have a logical argument, and when you press them for one they typically generate something nonsensical on the fly, but really they don’t need a logical argument for every specific issue. Their broad position is just “social change in general is risky and potentially bad, and what we had before was good enough”. Do you think that is not a valid position to hold? Surely you can think of some social changes that would obviously lead to catastrophic effects, and given that we can’t simulate a society we can’t know in advance whether a particular “not obviously bad” change will have a negative impact later on.
- djom 2y ago
  Conservatives might not have a logical argument against this, but feminists have plenty. And if you read radical feminist writings they've been warning about this and the outcomes of this for decades. Take prisons for example. The policy changes that in some states now separate prisons by "gender identity" instead of sex has led directly to males being locked up in women's prisons, some of whom have sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated female prisoners incarcerated with them. This is just one negative outcome of many. The ideology behind "trans" causes demonstrable harm towards women and girls.

djom 2y ago

[flagged]

diputsmonro 2y ago
I don't want to get into a giant political debate here, but I would urge you to follow the spirit of this post and actually talk to some trans people, in person, to get their perspective before voting for people who demonize them and take their rights away. All of those are rooted in transphobia. The entire point of those bathroom bills to "protect women" is built upon the foundational idea that trans people are dangerous predators who want to assault people. It's a bigoted idea not supported by the data, which is built out of fear, and - appropriate to this whole post - a lack of understanding from never having actually talked to a trans person.
- djom 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - muffinman26 2y ago
    Do you realize that these laws that are supposed to "protect women" mean that I, a trans guy who was assigned female at birth but now have a full beard and look completely male in any clothes considered acceptable in public settings, am required to use the women's restroom and changing rooms in Florida? Is forcing an angry (trans) man to use the women's restroom your idea of "protecting women's spaces"?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - djom 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - slater 2y ago
        [flagged]
        witches 2y ago
        [flagged]
        slater 2y ago
        [flagged]
        witches 2y ago
        [flagged]

saulpw 2y ago

There are people who vote Republican in private, and they are different from those who loudly proclaim their Republicanism to everyone they encounter. It might be a shame that the private Republicans vote how they do, but that doesn't have to affect their ability to engage with trans people, or vice versa. So I would say the problem is not the ideological divide per se, but the 'identity' politics which makes both sides openly intolerable to each other. Of course, it's problematic because trans people can't keep private in their transness at a game of cards in the way that a radical socialist could. But in modern discourse, we're all encouraged to be loud and proud in order to advance our preferred politics, instead of quiet and demure in order to foster community that transcends politics.

diputsmonro 2y ago
> ...but that doesn't have to affect their ability to engage with trans people, or vice versa. I disagree. How am I supposed to trust and feel safe around someone who knowingly voted for a politician who loudly campaigned on removing my rights and demonizing my very existence? A politician who supports an esoteric policy that disadvantages me in some way is entirely different than one who loudly and plainly says that I am less human and should have fewer rights than others. That rhetoric kills people. And it's not a deal-breaker for you? I cannot call such a person a friend. A vote for a Republican in modern times is an expression to trans people that their rights and safety are less important to you than whatever esoteric tax policy or whatever than won your vote. You can value that policy more than the rights of trans people if you want, that's your prerogative. But it will make trans people and their allies trust you a lot less when they discover that you think their rights are just a bargaining chip to be traded away, and justifiably so. What other situations are you willing to throw them under the bus over, not just in politics, but in life? It's not just a matter of pride or preference, but a matter of rights and safety.
- saulpw 2y ago
  Bingo. I'm afraid, internet stranger, that you are part of the problem here. The original topic for this thread was about "community" and the mental health crisis. Community brings diverse people into contact with each other, which fosters communication and thus has the potential to heal division and increase empathy. Do you not realize that a lot of people think that abortion is literally murder? That voting for the pro-choice candidate will kill more babies each year than there are trans people? Regardless of how correct you think they are, they also think this is a matter of rights and safety, of life and death. It may be hard to understand, but they believe this as strongly and fervently as you believe what you do. Now you tell me, without some mechanism to bring people of such disparate views together, how does this resolve? An acrimonious dissolution into a red nation and a blue nation? A civil war in which we both try to snuff out opposing views with violence? (Wouldn't that be ironic?) At best, you want your side to win, in perpetuity, until the current generation of bad-ists has died off and your views prevail. But as we see, that doesn't happen. The "bad" views continue to be transmitted from generation to generation, fomented by political opportunists, and then we are at constant risk of "their side" prevailing in perpetuity. You think 2028 or 2032 will be any better? The only way people change their minds is by coming into contact with other people with different viewpoints over a long period of time. But that involves actual relationships, not beating someone into submission with well-reasoned arguments. (Think about how well that works on you!) And you can't have any kind of relationship if you dismiss a citizen out-of-hand because of how they voted. So you want to make a real difference? Stop being so loud about who you can't be friends with. Don't ask your co-workers about their politics; it's a waste of energy. Talk with your relatives about their actual problems, and steer the conversation away from political rhetoric. Pretend like you want to be a part of humanity instead of apart from it.

y-c-o-m-b 2y ago

> How can I fault them for having a gut reaction to not engage with Republicans? And if someone is still happy to call themselves a Republican after all this hate, I think that reflects something about their character. Yes and sometimes it's worth peeling back the layers to find out why they are embodying that character. An offensive strategy creates a defensive response, nothing will ever get resolved that way; it only creates more hostility. Instead, I invest time into knowing what makes that person so stubbornly that way while re-asserting the fact that I do not hold the same values. In at least a few of those cases, those people turned around to become more open to the LGBTQ+ community despite still holding onto their Republican status. That's a win in my book because it's slowly getting them to think more independently. One of my friends was homophobic and would often make homophobic slurs "he's wearing f*g sandals". Instead of telling him he's a bad person or laugh along with him to avoid making things uncomfortable, I simply reiterate that I have no issues with people identifying as gay because what people do in their lives is none of my business. I let him know that I've made friends with gay men and never had one make me uncomfortable or feel like they overstepped boundaries; I know that idea is sometimes what makes straight men afraid of gay men. It took some time, but one day he finally let out that he had a weird uncle that would touch little boys and that's what he associates the LGBTQ+ community with. To which I gently pointed out why it's irrational. He's finally starting to come around now. Recently he'd been heard saying he's ok if his daughter ever turned out to be a lesbian. Small step in the right direction...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pfannkuchen 2y ago

I mean, the label of the group is “conservative”. Trans acceptance and the explosion in trans identifying individuals is objectively a change in the social order, which by definition will be opposed by those seeking to conserve the existing social order. Conservatives don’t have a logical argument, and when you press them for one they typically generate something nonsensical on the fly, but really they don’t need a logical argument for every specific issue. Their broad position is just “social change in general is risky and potentially bad, and what we had before was good enough”. Do you think that is not a valid position to hold? Surely you can think of some social changes that would obviously lead to catastrophic effects, and given that we can’t simulate a society we can’t know in advance whether a particular “not obviously bad” change will have a negative impact later on.

djom 2y ago
Conservatives might not have a logical argument against this, but feminists have plenty. And if you read radical feminist writings they've been warning about this and the outcomes of this for decades. Take prisons for example. The policy changes that in some states now separate prisons by "gender identity" instead of sex has led directly to males being locked up in women's prisons, some of whom have sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated female prisoners incarcerated with them. This is just one negative outcome of many. The ideology behind "trans" causes demonstrable harm towards women and girls.