But that’s the whole point - that the main problem genre iconoclasts face is that they’re not mainstream… at this point in time. But because adoption is mainstream at this time, it is a somewhat useful teaching tool in showing gender essentialism for the foolishness it is, especially when it comes to language. I know there are still some people who have very unusual ideas about adoption (we even have a notable one on this very board) but in the overwhelming majority of cases people, be they conservatives or progressives, are I think OK with adoption being normalized.
So while I’m sure there exists some dark recess on the internet where Adoption Exclusive Radical Familists dwell and froth because, y’know, it’s the Internet ; you don’t see them plastered on the frontpage nor are their opinions given the time of day. There’s no peanut gallery of pundits on the telly complaining that adoptees are trying to erase REAL parents, or that they’re FORCING people to go along with their obvious and pathological delusions, or that they lie and are traps because they don’t disclose their shameful status of Other upfront whenever you meet them and muh right to choose not to associate with adoptees, nor think it scandalous that family consumer products are not explicitly marketed towards REAL BIOLOGICAL families, or that adoptive parents are included in PTA meetings and their kids go to school with NORMAL ones and how am I supposed to explain to my 4 year old CHILD that Becky’s mum isn’t, etc etc…
The point is, you can reframe a ton of transphobic speech, ideas and catastrophizing fearmongering as “adoptophobic” and thereby illustrate their absurdity, or arbitrariness if you prefer. It’s… it’s really fine, guys. We can call adoptive children “children”. We do. Society hasn’t been OBLITERATED as a result.
Reminds me of Bill Hicks’ positive drug stories on the news bit - “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here’s Tom with the weather !”
It’s not that transmen aren’t scary–they don’t even exist for these people. In all the bathroom debates, the transphobic position never seems to even consider that they are mandating that transmen use the restroom with women, the exact thing they are freaking out about. And in the thread that started this mess, there are several posters that appear confused about who is objecting to the Venus symbol on the Always packaging: this is an issue where transmen feel excluded, but they are saying things that suggests that they think transwomen think they should somehow be included or something.
MtF is the beginning and end of the issue for a lot of people. I don’t know if it’s fear of castration, or homophobia (what if I am attracted to someone who is “really” a man?) or just plain “the ‘male variant’ of anything is the only real or interesting one”, but it’s a constant pattern.
I disagree. Directing the comment at Max makes it about the poster, not the post (ideas). Should be moderated as a personal attack.
If it helps, just think “transitioning to man” and “transitioning to woman”. That’s basically your “Fettom” and “Mattof”.
Also, the whole point is to address them how they want to be identified, not as they were or by some ambiguous term.
I would agree to that statement. One is a position statement, a description of belief, the other is a blatant attempt to disrespect (if intentional). How thoroughly that should be modded is a question.
Well said.
That’s a lot of word projection. If someone actually wrote, “You’re batshit crazy and your most deeply held feelings aren’t real feelings, but psychotic hallucinations”, that would be modded immediately. However, it is not the job of the board to police what someone believes. Expressing the idea that transgenderism is not real is an argument that should be allowed.
I can agree to a degree. I don’t think saying “transmen aren’t REAL men” qualifies.
I would hope the moderators can take note and do a better job of policing hateful jokes inserted into discussions. As well as nasty comments, or demands to know about a person’s genitalia, etc.
I do appreciate the information and perspective you provide.
I think you’re equivocating on the use of the word “real”. I think saying that is fine, just like saying “a man who hits women isn’t a REAL man” or whatever. It’s a value judgement, but we allow value judgements if they aren’t addressed to board users.
It is incredibly amazing that on this board with all the info that’s been put out that there are still people who are mentally frozen into the discrete, purely binary view on gender. There’s a lot of “fuzziness” out there. Not every person can be slotted into one of exactly two groups. *
So fixating on doing exactly that is baffling.
Also, pushing your limited viewpoint over that of the individuals involved is “being a jerk” at the very least. No need to debate whether it’s hate speech.
I’ve mentioned my all time most memorable example here several times. A person named “Toby” who appeared on Larry King a long, long time ago. Looked female at birth. Raised as a girl. During adolescence things weren’t changing as expected. Turns out Toby was chromosomally a guy. Tried living as a guy for a while. Got married to a woman**, got divorced. Finally just gave up trying to choose an specific gender.
Has problems many others don’t. Can walk around in a men’s swimsuit no problem at the beach. (No breasts or other female aspects.) But go into the men’s dressing room and use a shower? (No male genitalia.) That’s something else entirely to the “two and only two, fixed forever” types.
** Which would violate some anti-trans laws since the birth certificate said female.
First of all, I did not say anything about defining ‘the male gender’. I specifcally made a comment about whether someone is a ‘real man’ or not, and did not use either the words ‘male’ or ‘gender,’ so discussion about ‘define the male gender’ is irrelevant and smacks of an attempt at misdirection. It is not at all novel to refer to someone who engages in activity that one considers reprehensible to be ‘not a real man’, and there are lots of people who actively argue against some of the standard conditions to ‘not be a real man’ Teaching Our Sons to Be Good Men is an example of that usage that I found on a quick google search, and it is not at all uncommon. I can damn well argue for what I consider to be a ‘real man’, and if you tell me that I don’t consider it that, you’re breaking board rules by accusing another poster of lying.
What doesn’t pass the smell test is your attempt to pretend I said something I didn’t. It’s kind of absurd to do that when my original post is right there.
Under a definition of man = a ham sandwich and woman = a bowl of petunias, it’s also nonsensical. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to what I asked and the mods have thus far declined to answer.
That’s the most infuriating part of this issue where I’m concerned. Like, trans, non binary etc… people live with that every day and I guaranfuckingtee they’ve spent a lot more time and effort and philosophy than any normie thinking about gender, researching the issues, exploring their own feelings, discussing them and trying to pin down where their space lies.
But nope, “urrr durr I don’t think you’re that, so that’s settled, snowflake”. The sheer arrogance is unbelievable.
I disagree that people using language as it has been used is hate speech. You are bound to offend someone if a discussion involves gender and sport or pay or life expectancy or behavior. Not being able to discuss issues without he fear of being hauled off to jail for hate speech is much more troubling than hurt feelings.
I’ll call people whatever they want to be called, but my opinion and one I keep to myself except having to explain myself here is that unless you’ve changed your chromosomes, you’re still biologically your birth gender. Surgery or and the use of drugs to help you feel who you believe you should have been deep inside is fine if it makes you happy. Don’t care what others think about you.
I heavily side with science on many matters but I’ve never heard of something that changes every facet of biology which would include manipulating chromosome counts. Again, personally speaking, I don’t see why this is even being contested or debated so much. Someone who feels they’re the opposite gender or non-binary which I guess what “houseplant” on the first page was referring to isn’t any of my business. I’m trying to live my own life and I don’t have the energy to give a shit about someone else’s who isn’t blood related let alone immediate family. Why would I care what strangers want or whether two chicks or two dudes want to bang each other for life? There’s some weird shit with humanity that loves to encroach on the lives of others. Just be you and mind your own damn business.
I’m just wondering why these few people on the Board are so desperate to continue their ability to trivialize, marginalize, and (ultimately) dehumanize these people. Whether you understand it or not, trangenderism is real, and anyone with even the smallest amount of respect for one’s fellows should respect that.
I find that those who attempt to trivialize others whom they cannot understand have a trivial view of themselves, and thus do what they do to bolster their image of themselves. I don’t know if that’s the correct way of saying it, nor do I know the sociologicial or psychological theories, if any, relating to it.
