I saw a post get banned. Well I dont wanna be a taboo subject. The more we shut down conversations the more we are ostracized. We shouldnt be so dogmatic. A society where people are free to express unpopular opinions is the one we want to live in. Seriously folks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -2 points 6 months ago (27 children)
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago

    You’re not expressing the support / ‘live and let live’ attitude you think you are.

    Your impression of trans people is based on right wing hyperbole/mockery. You don’t understand it, because “it” doesn’t make sense.

    The phrases “man in a dress” or “woman with a beard”does not resonate with the vast majority of people actually in the community.

    I can help clear up some of the confusion, if you’d like.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago*

    I don't think trans people necessarily expect you to fully understand. how could anyone who isn't trans themselves really fully understand?

    but they at least expect you to treat them with the same dignity and respect that you'd give to anyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (20 children)

    But the moment someone starts saying they identify as opposite from their birthed biological chromosomes you've lost me.

    There are two things you appear ignorant about.

    First, while gender and sex are not the same thing HRT can be absurdly effective and adjusting the latter to match the former. There are humans out here who look and act "obviously" manly or womanly, despite privately being female or male respectivly. And that's before we consider surgical options.

    Second, human sex is not that simple. Take the IoC's "trans women" ban, where they are now testing for the SRY gene. Except that there are cis-women who are XX with a copied SRY from their fatber's Y, and XY humans for whom the SRY gene is dormant, or whose testes never developed, or who are testosterone resistant -- and have appeared feminine since birth. Its entirely likely the IoC will wind up banning more cis women than trans women.

    Taken together, these facts lead most people to conclude that the only fair thing is to take people at their word. Sure, doing so means you may need to treat some apparent "bearded women" and "men in dresses" contrary to your initial perception. But most adults do that anyway for literally every other aspect of humanity, and unless you're a sexist jerk the sum total of what you'd need to change is just pronouns and salutations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (18 children)

    If you reduce sex to ONLY gamete production you esssntjally declare castrated males, menopausal females, children, and anyone with complete infertiktiy to be sexless.

    Which has the benefit of keeping categorical simplicity, but most people who argue against nuance in the sexing of humans are against either either the two sexes being "yes/no" questions or the human sexs being three categories of "male", "female", and "other".

    (And it still obscures the nuance and variation in human gender and sexuality. Nobody's sexually attracted to gametes.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (16 children)

    Stomping your feet and pretending the exceptions dont exist doesn't make them not exist.

    Nothing in nature is ever absolutely so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (14 children)

    I already listed a bunch. Here are the relevant comments.

    https://lemmy.world/comment/23168319

    https://lemmy.world/comment/23272499

    I'm sure you can find some other examples if you do apply a proper skeptical review of your idea and search out arguments that disagree with you or examples that break your categorization.

    I suggest starting with the relevant Wikipedia articles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_humans

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (12 children)

    Dude, you are the one arguing the position that sex is merely gamete production.

    My position is merely "it's complicated and we need to leave space for edge cases." (I am perfectly fine with male/female being separate yes/no questions or having the sex options be m/f/x)

    Linking to a transphobic advocacy site just identifies you as either an embarassed transphobe or a sucker.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (10 children)

    No, you're repeating a transphobic oversimplification of biology. And resorting to a bad argument from authority when the easy gaps in your simplifications are called out.

    I'd ignore you at this point, but I have a macbre curiosity as to if you are yourself a transphobe or if you're instead just a useful fool for transphobic activism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (8 children)

    Oh, you're transphobic yourself. Got it.

    "Truth" is for religion, philosophy, and encouraging honesty in courtrooms. Neither science, medicine, nor langauge give two shits about truth, only utility.

    (And systems of categorization between N states have substantially less utility than those that include N states plus "other")

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    So, are you a hateful troll because you're transphobic, or are you transphobic because you're a hateful troll?

    There is no "utility" in demanding that intersex humans be categorized as either male or female. No actual medical researchers study "biology", and actual science tells us that models where we treat human sex, gender, and sexuality as having only a coincidental correlation to reproductive cells are substantially more useful.

    I mean, unless you're a transphobic bigot scared that the kids you love might realize that they are trans and dump you the way all victims dump their abusers. I guess a transphobic model could have some utility in spreading transphobia. Not that it even passes the first requirement of parsimony, though, since you need to ignore all of those damn edge cases....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    It doesn't matter how many times you share the same transphobic oversimplification, it's still a transphobic oversimplification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Why? You'd have to ask the authors why they put up a transphobic site. My guess is that they're either personally hateful bigots or just amoral cowards who take money from the same.

    As for how...

    [How] is it transphobic?

    Go read the "about us" link on that advocacy page you keep pushing. Specifically the part about how "activists" are trying to confuse their "truth".

    The advocates they're talking about are non-cis LGBTQIA+ folk whose dastardly agenda is "just let us be who we are." I suspect that if you scratched down to their funding source you'd find some of the same people pushing bathroom bills and gender marker shenanigans on official documents.

    [How] is it an oversimplification?

    For the Nth time, it's an oversimplification because categorizing all humans based on which reproductive cells they make ignores or misgroups humans who either don't produce any or who look and smell like they might produce the other ones than those they might once have produced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    So you're saying you know misgendering hurts people's feelings, but you're still going to do it, because you don't understand why it hurts their feelings?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    I guess the thinking is that it's a delusion, and if you're calling them the gender they want, you are enabling the delusion. That it's more important to try to correct them than protect their feelings.

    I'm not sure, but I'm guessing this wouldn't be the right tactic even if it was a delusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    That's right, arguing with psychotic people further alienates them from society and prevents them from getting support. Being part of a community has a stabilising effect on one's emotional wellbeing. If someone has a paranoid delusion, society arguing with them is just going to make them feel less belonging and more paranoia.

    Some delusions can be harmful in and of themselves. If your schizophrenic roommate thinks the government put a tracking device in their wrist, don't let them cut it open to get the device. Call a crisis support line to ask for help.

    But the only harm solved by putting trans people back in the closet is the very harm transphobes themselves inflict on trans people. You can't argue someone out of gender dysphoria, you're just hurting them for no reason. Other than, as the transphobes claim, to prevent other transphobes from harassing them. That's a self-fulfillment paradox.

  • source
  • parent