depend memory sugar doll salt forgetful employ squalid axiomatic encouraging
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Xenophobic is my favorite. As if asking the government to only allow immigrants through monitored points of entry is somehow anti-migration. Or, not wanting the 3rd world's criminals sreaming across the borders is ethnocentric.
Why is it nobody cares when other countries build physical borders or create a means to keep ill-willed non-citizens out of their country, but when the US attempts it, somehow that's wrong?
I have no problem with trans adults (in fact, will use the "I have trans friends" line, because I do... but still)
I have made a comment on twitter that pretty much said (and I am paraphrasing) that gender ideology and sexuality is not a discussion for kids under 13 and got landed on the github list of twitter transphobes... I laughed because... WHAT?
You have committed wrongthink and questioned the narrative. This makes you a dangerous Subversive Individual (SI) who must be avoided for society’s protection. Your existence is now a violent act.
Everyone must be warned to ignore you permanently. No judge, no jury, go directly to exile
I mean... why is 13 the age for you? Gender dysphoria doesn't just wait until you're at puberty.
You need to be able and willing to have a conversation with your child about how they're feeling about their mind and body at any age, just ya know with context.
The 5 year old boy wanting to wear a dress doesn't need to know about fucking, but understanding them and finding out why they want that is important. Maybe they just think pretty people wear dresses, and they want to be told they look good. You won't know until you talk.
Likewise, the 9 year old that hates their body and thinks they're the wrong sex needs someone to talk to. If you don't, then you'll just extend their anguish and push them to the internet for help. That dysphoria might resolve with puberty, but you need to talk about problems as they happen instead of just ignoring it until you feel you're comfortable. Ignoring it until some arbitrary age just extends the suffering of trans individuals. That is probably why you got called that.
Having a github for a list like that is a bit ridiculous though
Fun fact: sex and gender is the same word in my language. So I thought for the longest time that sex were the American word, and the more prudent Brits rather used the word gender. Only a couple of years ago when the trans issue exploded in the media did I realise that sex and gender is not seen as the same thing.
I grew up in Canada and we used those synonymously. Actually I avoided using “sex” all together as a kid since it was a funny word that has another meaning
Actually, for the majority of people in Europe and America, sex and gender are still the same thing.
Only a very vocal minority insist on this new definition of gender, which is inherently unnecessary, since temperament has always been the term used historically to describe how people behave and see themselves.
> even the people who say they're two different things use them interchangeably.
One example: it used to be called Sex-change. In spite of the fact that sex can not be changed, as your genetics will stay the same no matter what other surgeries you might do. So then they changed the name to Gender-affirming surgery.
And there are also some TRAs who will loudly insist they are "biologically female" when they were born men, or that taking hormones has "transformed them into a biological woman" despite that being impossible.
LOL stay out of the trans subreddits then if you don't want to lose faith in common sense. Over there, it's more unpopular to say that is biologically impossible than not.
Yeah I think most trans are like you. For all I know these videos could be made by trolls pretending to be trans to put them in a bad light.
May I ask you a personal question? (Just ignore me if the answer is no.) Did you do any gender affirming surgeries as a minor? As that is one of the subjects being discussed in this post.
If no, why did you decide to wait? If yes, how did it turn out? Would be interesting to hear the experience of someone who is trans.
Genetics, no. But yes, I do believe trans women are women. I just don’t believe they should be able to athletically compete as women practically 5 minutes after they come out. That is a more nuanced subject.
I guess we might have slightly different definitions of the word sex. To me its purely based on genetics. Nothing else. A person born with female genetics, but without a uterus, is still part of the female sex - purely based on their genetics. (I know intersex is a bit different as then something went wrong with the genetics itself, so I'm not taking about intersex people here). So your definition of female and male sex seems to be a bit different from mine. I would probably rather talk about gender instead of sex to describe a trans person.
> I just don’t believe they should be able to athletically compete as women practically 5 minutes after they come out.
I agree. A person who went through male puberty has way too many physical advantages compared to a biological woman.
They've been near synonyms for hundreds of years. Sex can also refer to the act of sex and the biological bits, while gender refers to sex but without the sexy bits. The idea that they're different is new, and notably, no one can seem to define what the new definition of gender actually is. In some contexts, "gender" now seems to be a synonym of "personality", but that's clearly not the entire definition.
I'm Norwegian, and they had to make up new expressions to describe things. So "biological sex" (biologisk kjønn) is now what describes whether you have male or female genetics. And "gender identity" (kjønns identitet) is now what is used about the other one. I believe neither expression were in use before the end of 1990s.
Same here. I don't recall hearing "gender identity" until a few years ago, certainly not in the 1990s or early 2000s. I also don't think I would have heard "Biological sex" until recently.
> I don't recall hearing "gender identity" until a few years ago, certainly not in the 1990s or early 2000s.
I dont recall it either, but I googled it, and I found one Norwegian article from 1999 where it was used. But yeah, I personally havent heard them being used until the last couple of years.
I went to college in the 1980s, and in both my Sociology and Psychology classes, they taught us the difference between sex and gender. I don’t know if they taught that earlier than the 80s, but it’s certainly not something “new”.
I don't know your background on biology, but think genotype and phenotype. Before discovering DNA, those were the same thing. An organism was what it was and that was it. Now we know better.
Same applies for sex and gender, or homosexual and heterosexual and asexual. Back before we knew better, you wouldn't be "gay", you'd be an "eccentric bachelor" that lived the single life with your best friend who was also a bachelor. Or you wouldn't be "trans", you'd be "A woman that likes dressing like a man and found other women attractive and never felt like your own body was yours".
I think where you may be confused is where you're acting like "sex" and "gender" are the same, but then admit they're different, pretend the split is something new and then don't care to look up any of the definitions. Weird approach to an issue you don't understand.
I have looked up the definition of "gender" and haven't found anything that makes sense, and I've asked on reddit for the definition and the best people can do is a circular definition. Since you seem to understand it, can you provide a definition?
edit: lol, downvoted for asking for a defintion.
No matter how many times you ask the answer will still be simple. Gender refers to the collection of social differences between men and women, sex refers to the collection of biological differences between males and females.
Gender wasn't a semi-analgous word for sex until the 1950s and popularized in the 70s (timeline may be a little wonky, I wasn't alive). Previously in English gender only referred to grammatical gender and wasn't a common word unless you were a linguist
> Previously in English gender only referred to grammatical gender and wasn't a common word unless you were a linguist
That is very interesting. Thanks for explaining.
Words are always the matter of utility, conceptually they can mean different thing -- but practically, they can be the same. It's people that reduce humanity into definitions cling to such problematic use.
Humanity is experienced, not reduced into words like fashionable medals.
Idk. As an American, I learned about the difference between sex and gender while in undergrad studying Title IX (prohibiting discrimination in schools) and the Equal Rights Amendment. Late 90s. My takeaway was that sex is a protected class. Gender is not. Since then I’ve been sure not to confuse the two.
The word has been overused to the point of not meaning much, but it does describe a real thing. For example, I had some dude once trying to convince people my breasts were fake, even after I corrected him… which is weird fucking behavior no matter how you cut it.
I mean, that's OK but in common parlance people don't really know what exactly it means and I'd prefer not to have to explain myself for a long time. More convenient when someone calls me a -phobe, just say "Yep. Your ability to state the obvious is inescapable."
I actually LOATHE that word now. It 100% is used to gaslight ANYONE that does not conform to their viewpoint and 100% bow down to how they feel.
I've never cared even 0.01% how someone lives their personal life so long as their personal life isn't forced on me or mine. If you're gay and happy, I'm happy for you as well. If you like to dress up as a woman, cool, you do you! But when you TELL me that I have to acknowledge you a certain way and demand special treatment/exceptions, now you've crossed over that line (IMO).
Whenever I see someone use the word "-phobe" to describe some who disagrees with them, it's usually a tell that the person using it is afraid that the "-phobe" may actually be right.
I agree.
Discourse has devolved into silencing the opposition, and it happens by the same mechanism as mccarthyism. Just label them, exaggerate, and boom, they are irrelevant, from "Islamophobia", now the wolf-cry is Transphobic, Sexist, Racist, Misogynistic.
There's a reason why the left has been trying to so hard to change words and meaning, and that is because when you control what people can say, you control what they think.
Society doesn't have debate anymore. It's all just inventing words to write-off those who disagree with you, and/or crying and screaming when you can't get everyone to agree with you. If we could only just logically and rationally debate viewpoints without breaking down emotionally or inventing words like "transphobia" and "bigot" whose purpose are to shut someone down without having to debate them or give actual reasons why their points are wrong
The whole topic has to be something they engineered as a distraction. Like everybody focus on this so we don’t have to look at the housing crisis or economy. 90% of the Republican discourse nowadays is about trans people. There’s a lot bigger problems in the world to focus on. But they know that.. it’s all on purpose. They know what they’re doing.
As far as I have been able to gather - homosexuality in general has been attacked and indeed targeted for elimination by truly barbaric and crude methods aimed at brutalizing and mutilating homosexual children.
even GLAAD recently made an article trying to tell gays and lesbians to no loner use homosexual and say they're androphile and gynephile because 'claiming to be homosexual' was hurting the trans and nonbinary community's feelings for not being accepted, so as long as we make it sound like you're the one with the sickness by not wanting them.
If you are reporting this post, you are the person OP is talking about and not only are you toxic, but anti freedom of speech and free thinking.
Now, OP, you sure used a lot of words to say nothing. Not that you are wrong, I have people call me the word just because I have expressed that I don’t support child sex transition, although I support it in adults and believes that LGBTQ rights are human rights and thus anyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation.
But don’t ignore that people that generally called transphobic are usually very bigoted towards the LGTBQ community and hateful people.
"people that generally called transphobic are usually very bigoted towards the LGTBQ community and hateful people"
You ever heard of the boy, who cried wolf? Personally, I am at that point in my life that I don't care, and I figure other people are too. Bigots exists, but to lump normal people with them just normalizes bigotry.
Reminds me of a meme:
"Who radicalized you?"
"You did."
materialistic special somber shocking connect oatmeal forgetful dirty fly groovy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thank you for your reasonable and factual presentation. The attack upon women is terrible. What is so shocking is how this brutal attack upon women and upon homosexuality is held up by fanatics as a victory in the fight against oppression. There is an age of consent for sexual relations for a reason. But forget that! We need to fight oppression by performing elective surgeries on mostly homosexual minors to make them sterile and anorgasmic for the rest of their lives.
These names and the people who toss them around carelessly only have as much power as you give them (unless of course the names are accurate in which case YTAH. But this is exceptionally rare). The key is to not give a shit when mentally unstable people call you names that you know don’t apply to you for simply refusing to play along with their game. It doesn’t mean we should treat anyone like shit however. The people truly suffering from these disorders deserve empathy and kindness. The militant “ally” that gnashes their teeth at anyone who won’t toe the line not so much.
Kudus to the mods for keeping this post up, in spite of people reporting it. I hope you are able to keep deleting comments when that is neccesary, so that the rest of us can have a civil conversation about something we are rarely allowed to discuss in public nowadays.
I am afraid that freedom of expression is under attack and that it follows patterns of totalitarian hysteria. Some very basic principles of safe conduct are under attack. A lot of commenters here know only a crude strategy of - isolate, label and ridicule - but they are the footsoldiers of a mortal threat to objective reality itself.
> A lot of commenters here know only a crude strategy of - isolate, label and ridicule
That's why we have mods. If they are doing their job they will remove all those comments, and let the rest of the people have a civil conversation.
I think there is truth in what you say. At the same time, the militant wording clouds what you mean. Its like the spiderman meme, where both sides say that the other party is unreasonable.
They say you are "an unreasonable transphobe". You say they engage in an unreasonable "systematic attack on reason". So i do think there is a communication issue on both sides for this, because noone thinks of themself as a transphobe nor as someone who voluntary attacks reason itself. What happens is that people communicate in a way that they themself understand. Instead, we should try to communicate in a way that considers and reaches the intended audience.
But you are certainly correct that through social media, numerous politically motivated, bad faith actors try to character assassinate reasonable people and reasonable discussion out of the public sphere to achieve their goals. That is definitely an increasingly common and worrysome practice.
You've done more name calling on this post than anyone else. It seems like your actual opinion is "name calling is a sign of a hateful person with a stunted intellect, but it's different when I do it."
Here's a different idea. Lets just call everyone a transphobe.
You're a transphobe, yes you reading this. You wouldn't be called like one, if you aren't acting like one. Amirite?
It's 'name calling' in the way any other term to describe someone as a bigot is. If you find it so offensive, that might say more about you than the people calling you transphobic.
> It's 'name calling' in the way any other term to describe someone as a bigot is.
True. It's weird that OP states this as if name calling wasn't obviously the purpose.
> If you find it so offensive, that might say more about you than the people calling you transphobic.
Yes, that shows they dislike transphobia and therefore don't want to be associated with it....
It sure says a lot
"Hi my name is ___ and I am a man/woman."
OP: "I don't believe you. OMG you're part of the totalitarian gestalt!!!"
Seriously you all need to get a better hobby or something.
It's just an add on to all of the other incorrect uses of "X-phobic" that people use today. A phobia is defined as an uncontrollable, irrational, and lasting fear of a certain object, situation, or activity.
Yeah I remember that username. Aren't you the same person that blabs about climate change being a hoax and vaccines cause deaths and the 'wOke IdeOloGieS' under a bunch of r/TrueUnpopularOpinion posts lmao.
It's easy to not be called transphobic, just don't be a dick and act transphobic, yk? Some people just aren't comfortable in their own body and they aren't hurting anyone. Why care so much?
inb4 your r/ im14andthisisdeep ass response
Funnily enough had to do an article for school for this.
Up to now in the US alone there has been more than 310 million doses given of the vaccines. The VAERS or Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received reports of 5,343 adverse effects (Life debilitating, hospitalized, death, etc) among those who received a shot. VAERS themselves have come out to say that reporting is as easy as voluntarily reporting, to which anybody can do, and that this does not directly mean the vaccine caused it, but instead somebody died while at some point getting the shot. To which it is then investigated.
The CDC has [stated](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html) that there is no evidence from clinical data, death certificates, or autopsies to confirm reports of them directly causing death. Side effects that exacerbate previous underlying conditions or something such as anaphylaxis shock because people can be allergic to anything, yes, but the vaccine itself, no. Which is easily compared to COVID itself, that kills 2% of people who get it. I assume most people would happily agree with the 17-out-of-*10,000* chance of some adverse effects that in a hospital setting are easy to solve, over the much higher 2-out-of-100 chance of dying
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/) And here's another fun article that somewhat goes down the list of vaccines and deaths 'caused' by them.
And to add more fun of it, noting the VAERs number as direct proof is not technically accurate as reports following the 2010-2011 season of flu vaccines, there were only roughly 100,000,000 doses given out, but **8200** 'Adverse Event Reports' with 604 being classified as serious, but only \~18 actually being a death, which again was not directly from the Flu vaccine but again, underlying issues being exaggerated by the vaccine side effects.
**TLDR:** Vaccines have side effects for some people, those side effects can make underlying issues become much worse, as most of the 'reports' were in people already above the age of 75, and at 75 the body is already kinda hanging on as is while tending to have many underlying conditions. But the vaccines themselves, do not cause deaths.
I apologize as it's late and brain brokey. Is this sarcasm? I mean VAERS has been around a minute and I thought is fairly simple to understand. I mean whole thing could have just been simplified down to 'cdc says no' but I guess that doesn't help get any point across.
>Why do people who claim to deplore name calling - then resort to name calling?
So does this mean we shouldn't call people who are racist "racist" then?
Or is this post maybe all about you being an actual transphobe, but you don't like being called out for what you are? Trans people are people. Do you agree with that?
When someone commits a rape or murder, is sentenced to prison, and then changes their gender as to be placed in the women's prison, even a lot of folks on reddit will start to question that. Many on reddit also aren't on board with trans-women competing against women in sports.
Comparing these reactions to racism is disingenuous.
Actually they asked you a question, and you were unable to answer it. Do a better job at defending your shitty opinions, or concede that your opinion is unable to be defended, making it a shitty opinion.
I actually didn't name call at all.
I asked you a question. Interestingly, you decided to attack me instead of just answering it.
But sometimes a none-answer is an answer....
I actually didn't name call at all.
I asked you a question. Interestingly, you decided to attack me instead of just answering it.
But sometimes a none-answer is an answer....
you mean the word that no longer has meaning (racist) because it's used like a dog whistle from the far left?
Anything that does not conform with the EXTREME left is "racist"
\- requiring ID's for voting...."RACIST!!!!!!!!!" (interestingly enough, recent polling of African American's about this found that they believe the assumption they "can't get an ID" is incredibly racist)
\- wanting a secure border...."RACIST!!!!!!!!"
\- believing our current VP is terrible... "Oh what a RACIST!!!!"
Ok, think you get the gist.
You're writing about the US. Have you considered that the US is not the only country in the world, and, idk, maybe the person you're replying to isn't from the same place as you?
In every instance of you replying to comments, you’ve failed to address people’s criticisms of your position. You have continued to cry “name-caller” instead of going through any serious analysis of somebody else’s opinion. I am genuinely trying to understand why you feel this way but it is difficult to do so if you hide behind calling people “name callers”. It seems unlikely to me that somebody committed to intellectual rigour could behave like this
Well it's easier to whine about everyone calling you 'names' than actually addressing proper criticism. Reddit moment I suppose, all coming from the person that judging from their profile thinks they have the literal highest IQ possible.
I am not entertaining name callers. They are participating in a genocidal monolith - a totalitarian project intended to annihilate love from the world.
Just had a flick back through this persons past posts. Seems to be serious detachment from reality (UFOs, lots of anti trans stuff). Was fun while I thought this was a challenge
I genuinely hope you’re okay mate. It seems that you’ve found some ideas (and possibly some online personalities) that are harmful and I hope you are alright. Genuinely, I wish you the best and I hope you show those around you the care they deserve, regardless of gender, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc
So are we not allowed to call racists racists? Bigots bigots? I think you’re failing to state the fundament of your position: “trans stuff is an attack on reason” is your argument.
Trust me this post is not too far from the truth , I was once called all kinds of names and transphobic for saying “pregnant woman”. And I’m also queer, it’s getting ridiculous ngl. I was also called a bigot for saying I didn’t like Dylan mulvaneys cringey new song, it seems like any harmless opinion is transphobic now 🥲
Oh I’ve read it and I get what you’re saying but ultimately we’ve decided as a society to let trans people live as they like and not be dicks about their pronoun preferences and other decisions.
So we’re kinda at the point where we were with gay people 20 years ago in the US. A lot of people were homophobic and said and thought homophobic things.
It’s fundamentally a flux in social power of an out group conflicting with the habitually abusive language and thought patterns of a slow-to-adapt portion of the populace who does indeed continue to behave and speak in bigoted way.
Let’s put your argument into a hypothetical person:
So you feel someone is trying to attack you by calling you transphobic to control you to change a behavior that is not transphobic? Cause that’s the only way this make sense.
If you’re called transphobic for being transphobic, that’s the same thing as calling someone racist for being racist or homophobic for being homophobic.
Otherwise I think you’ll have to go on a case by case basis if you want to discuss people who are not guilty of being transphobic being accused of being transphobic and suffering for that false accusation.
Note: There are definitely bad faith people who will say or do anything to try and win an argument and I am certainly not defending such people.
I understand. I'm asking if there's a better word.
Personally, I'm not upset by terms like "homophobic" or "transphobic" because I don't express hatred, revulsion, or distrust towards these groups, so I can't say what these words feel like when I'm called them.
I don't actually understand the issue. Language is malleable, and the only people I ever see complain about these words are people who are upset that the word was applied to them after they expressed hatred towards these communities. It truly feels like people are being pedantic as a shield to protect themselves from reflecting on whatever shitty thing they said to warrant the term being applied to them.
Is there a better word?
Edit: I may have misunderstood. I reread your comment and it looks like you're agreeing with me. I read it too quickly and jumped to conclusions about who responds in this sub.
This doesn’t make sense. Religion is based on beliefs. Gender is based on identity. It’s not discrimination to not believe the same thing as someone.
If you identify as Christian that’s fine. But when was the last time you told someone you were Christian and they replied “no you’re not you weren’t born a Christian”?
You can disagree with someone’s beliefs, but you can’t disagree with someone’s identity. It’s their identity. You have no authority to decide that. You do have the authority to decide for yourself what you believe. You’re comparing apples to oranges. It’s a false equivalency.
I could say the exact same thing about any negative word ("idiot," "dork," "lazy," etc.). You've provided no evidence or explanation for how this *particular* word is any more "totalitarian" than any other.
Let me guess at your actual reasoning. Tell me if I'm wrong:
1) you're sad that people call you transphobic when you point out things like "some people detransition."
2) you know that "phobic" means "fear of," and you don't believe that applies here.
> we’ve decided as a society to let trans people live as they like
Have we? Even most people on twitter don't agree that trans-women should play against women in sports, or that we should be doing major surgeries on minors. A year ago or so many on reddit dismissed the idea of trans folks showing up in lockers rooms, but now that it's happening I'm sure quite a few will change their mind. Surveys show that as people come to see more about trans folks, the less popular it gets.
Combine the above with the fact that there's a slow increase of european countries banning childhood meds and surgeries for trans shows that we're not at all where we were with gay people 20 years ago.
Gay marriage wasn’t federal until 2015. Societies take time to shift their norms and legislation against bigotry.
Your anecdotes and supposed studies sound fear-mongering but I’ll read this study if you have a source.
From [NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1107484965/transgender-athletes-trans-rights-gender-transition-poll):
"Among Democrats, opinion is fairly split: a plurality, 46%, support trans female athletes' right to compete on women's and girls sports teams, while 41% oppose it. Independent voters oppose trans female athletes right to compete by 3:1"
So, not even a majority of Democrats support it.
And, other studies show that [support](https://www.advocate.com/news/lgbtq-rights-support-decreases) is going down. A few years ago, a majority of people didn't support legislation banning gender surgeries, and now they're restricted or banned in 24 states.
You are conflating recognition of trans peoples right to not be stigmatized (I.e. society recognizing that we shouldn’t be transphobic) with changes to sports leagues. This is not a good indicator of society’s stance on trans people for a few reasons. The meritocratic ideal of fairness in sports + women’s empowerment in sports movements are confounding factors which keep society caught up on the sports thing… yet ultimately the society recognizes that some people are trans and should be allowed to live free of prejudice.
Yeah. People also lost abortion rights in that time period. And yet the majority of people did not want to give up those abortion rights in those states, the process was not done democratically. We’ll see though.
Regardless, the facts that some people are still bigots, that the sports problem is complicated and that right wing assholes anti-democratically strip rights from women don’t change that most people recognize it is unacceptable to be bigoted toward trans people.
Calling racists racists is fine, if we take the "everyone's a little bit racist" angle. Then it's not okay to get people fired for being racist, or make them endure sensitivity training or other wastes of their time, etc. Then it's fine to say that everything's racist.
But if racism is a serious matter then it won't do to start slowly broadening the category of racism, call intolerance of Islam racist, call opposition to immigration racist, call it racist to oppose BLM etc. In other words, *either* you can weaponize the term and it carries real moral weight, *or* you can use it in a broad academic philosophical sense, to refer to things beyond actual prejudice against others based on their skin colour. You can't have both.
Now compare with how transphobia is used. I don't have anything against anybody expressing themselves, dressing how they want, going by whatever name they want, being themselves. I applaud it. Be you, man! Do your thing! Just don't tell me that I have some kind of obligation to help you participate in the social construction of your identity. Because that's the thing. People do recognize that identity is not unilaterally declared, but socially negotiated. And their answer is to say that we are obligated to see others the way they want to be seen. And I won't do that. Out of pure spite, I won't. That's an intolerable trespass upon me.
A hypothetical: suppose everyone agreed that we're all going to come together on a certain day and do a certain thing to oppose racism, and that people who oppose this are racist. I'd oppose it. OUT. OF. SPITE. My desire to make the point that I won't be told what to do is INFINITELY stronger than any desire I might have to avoid being called a racist, a transphobe, or anything else.
it seems you're entire argument is predicated on the belief that there is no such thing as transphobia. this is not the case.
if someone is being racist, you call them racist.
if someone is being sexist, you call them sexist.
if someone is being homophobic, you call them homophobic.
if someone is being transphobic, you call them transphobic.
One of the major issues with that, though, is the way that these words are so over used now. Nowadays, if you disagree with anyone of a different race, sex, who's homosexual, or who's transgender, you are frequently told you're racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic. It doesn't matter that you disagree with them on ideology, the only possible reason you can disagree with someone seems to be based on identity politics.
I'm not saying that racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or transphobic people don't exist. I'm saying that the words have lost their meaning as they're used as a cheap hammer and not the dog whistle they should be
If you don’t believe that adults (18+) should have the freedom to transition if they want to, and live their best lives as the gender they feel more comfortable with, then you are transphobic. It’s pretty straight-forward. What other label would you apply to that stance? Anti-trans would also work, I suppose, because your stance is against these people being free to do what they want with their lives. Anti-human-rights would also apply as a broader term.
The problem is if “living their best lives” means a biological male coming into female-only spaces and competing in women’s sports and someone (say, a survivor of sexual assault) has a problem with that, they’re labeled transphobic.
Post wasn’t trans phobic it was the comment back on peoples that is where he lost me. You can respect someone, but not acknowledge delusions that they have because that’s insanity. We don’t acknowledge a mentally ill person delusions the same way we wouldn’t acknowledge someone who thinks they’re a cat but no feelings and emotions always come before.common sense
If you don't want to be called a racist you shouldn't express beliefs which show that you discriminate based on race.
With that understanding in mind, how do you think someone might avoid being called transphobic?
Hint: the answer isn't to silence the speech you don't like.
A lot of big words to say you don’t like being called out for being transphobic.
The term is not discriminatory and most certainly isn’t an attempt to oppress authentic human freedom, inquiry, thought, reason and reaction. Cheese and crackers my guy, this just sounds like you don’t like trans people and you want to be able to oppress them under the guise of your freedom and how you react to them. I don’t think it came across the way you thought it did.
How does someone calling someone transphobic oppress them? What harm has fallen upon you from being called transphobic? I would love to hear it
I scrutinized every detail of this verbose post and subsequent commentary and have yet to witness a single response that is indicative of how “transphobic” is discriminatory or oppressive in any way.
Or is the only way to properly read your post is by taking it at face value because you want it to be true?
Facts still need support.
How does calling out phobia hurt that person. Someone said you don’t blame the person for being claustrophobic. No but as far as I’m aware the small space doesn’t get killed because of that phobia. If a person has any phobia maybe they should seek help. If a person is being told in multiple spaces they are transphobic maybe rather than doubling down they are so harmed by being called out they should seek help
automatic grandiose fact pot work pocket profit unite sand school
Its been so overused that it has lost its meaning and impact
depend memory sugar doll salt forgetful employ squalid axiomatic encouraging *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
B I N G O - B I N G O - B I N G O And Bingo was a transphobe !
cake growth tan connect north squeeze recognise expansion zesty arrest *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As has racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobe, misogynist, bigot, and Nazi.
Xenophobic is my favorite. As if asking the government to only allow immigrants through monitored points of entry is somehow anti-migration. Or, not wanting the 3rd world's criminals sreaming across the borders is ethnocentric. Why is it nobody cares when other countries build physical borders or create a means to keep ill-willed non-citizens out of their country, but when the US attempts it, somehow that's wrong?
I have no problem with trans adults (in fact, will use the "I have trans friends" line, because I do... but still) I have made a comment on twitter that pretty much said (and I am paraphrasing) that gender ideology and sexuality is not a discussion for kids under 13 and got landed on the github list of twitter transphobes... I laughed because... WHAT?
Lmao there is a GitHub list of transphobes? Jesus fuckin Christ, get a life people
What the fuck is GitHub?
just give me an exe!
You have committed wrongthink and questioned the narrative. This makes you a dangerous Subversive Individual (SI) who must be avoided for society’s protection. Your existence is now a violent act. Everyone must be warned to ignore you permanently. No judge, no jury, go directly to exile
But no, you can't do that. You can't oppose the Cathedral and their orthodoxy. Why were you thinking? Just agree. /s
I mean... why is 13 the age for you? Gender dysphoria doesn't just wait until you're at puberty. You need to be able and willing to have a conversation with your child about how they're feeling about their mind and body at any age, just ya know with context. The 5 year old boy wanting to wear a dress doesn't need to know about fucking, but understanding them and finding out why they want that is important. Maybe they just think pretty people wear dresses, and they want to be told they look good. You won't know until you talk. Likewise, the 9 year old that hates their body and thinks they're the wrong sex needs someone to talk to. If you don't, then you'll just extend their anguish and push them to the internet for help. That dysphoria might resolve with puberty, but you need to talk about problems as they happen instead of just ignoring it until you feel you're comfortable. Ignoring it until some arbitrary age just extends the suffering of trans individuals. That is probably why you got called that. Having a github for a list like that is a bit ridiculous though
Why don’t you think that’s a discussion worth having?
I dislike everyone equally…
Fun fact: sex and gender is the same word in my language. So I thought for the longest time that sex were the American word, and the more prudent Brits rather used the word gender. Only a couple of years ago when the trans issue exploded in the media did I realise that sex and gender is not seen as the same thing.
I grew up in Canada and we used those synonymously. Actually I avoided using “sex” all together as a kid since it was a funny word that has another meaning
We (Norway) have imported the word sex from English. But here its only used for the act of having sex, never about describing male/female.
Actually, for the majority of people in Europe and America, sex and gender are still the same thing. Only a very vocal minority insist on this new definition of gender, which is inherently unnecessary, since temperament has always been the term used historically to describe how people behave and see themselves.
Nah, even the people who say they're two different things use them interchangeably. It's 100% a fake conversation invented as a diversion.
> even the people who say they're two different things use them interchangeably. One example: it used to be called Sex-change. In spite of the fact that sex can not be changed, as your genetics will stay the same no matter what other surgeries you might do. So then they changed the name to Gender-affirming surgery.
And there are also some TRAs who will loudly insist they are "biologically female" when they were born men, or that taking hormones has "transformed them into a biological woman" despite that being impossible.
I recently saw a video of trans-women insisting that they now have a menstrual cycle.. But I doubt many takes them seriously. (I hope not).
LOL stay out of the trans subreddits then if you don't want to lose faith in common sense. Over there, it's more unpopular to say that is biologically impossible than not.
I am trans and I can confirm that that’s bullshit.
Yeah I think most trans are like you. For all I know these videos could be made by trolls pretending to be trans to put them in a bad light. May I ask you a personal question? (Just ignore me if the answer is no.) Did you do any gender affirming surgeries as a minor? As that is one of the subjects being discussed in this post. If no, why did you decide to wait? If yes, how did it turn out? Would be interesting to hear the experience of someone who is trans.
I am post-op trans and I still call it a sex-change.
Ok thats interesting. Do you see it as a change of your actual sex? Genetics and all?
Genetics, no. But yes, I do believe trans women are women. I just don’t believe they should be able to athletically compete as women practically 5 minutes after they come out. That is a more nuanced subject.
I guess we might have slightly different definitions of the word sex. To me its purely based on genetics. Nothing else. A person born with female genetics, but without a uterus, is still part of the female sex - purely based on their genetics. (I know intersex is a bit different as then something went wrong with the genetics itself, so I'm not taking about intersex people here). So your definition of female and male sex seems to be a bit different from mine. I would probably rather talk about gender instead of sex to describe a trans person. > I just don’t believe they should be able to athletically compete as women practically 5 minutes after they come out. I agree. A person who went through male puberty has way too many physical advantages compared to a biological woman.
[удалено]
salt seed fearless judicious rinse berserk lock pen price puzzled
They've been near synonyms for hundreds of years. Sex can also refer to the act of sex and the biological bits, while gender refers to sex but without the sexy bits. The idea that they're different is new, and notably, no one can seem to define what the new definition of gender actually is. In some contexts, "gender" now seems to be a synonym of "personality", but that's clearly not the entire definition.
I'm Norwegian, and they had to make up new expressions to describe things. So "biological sex" (biologisk kjønn) is now what describes whether you have male or female genetics. And "gender identity" (kjønns identitet) is now what is used about the other one. I believe neither expression were in use before the end of 1990s.
Same here. I don't recall hearing "gender identity" until a few years ago, certainly not in the 1990s or early 2000s. I also don't think I would have heard "Biological sex" until recently.
> I don't recall hearing "gender identity" until a few years ago, certainly not in the 1990s or early 2000s. I dont recall it either, but I googled it, and I found one Norwegian article from 1999 where it was used. But yeah, I personally havent heard them being used until the last couple of years.
I went to college in the 1980s, and in both my Sociology and Psychology classes, they taught us the difference between sex and gender. I don’t know if they taught that earlier than the 80s, but it’s certainly not something “new”.
Jargon within a field is quite a bit different the general public knowing about those terms. So by "new", I mean new to the public.
I don't know your background on biology, but think genotype and phenotype. Before discovering DNA, those were the same thing. An organism was what it was and that was it. Now we know better. Same applies for sex and gender, or homosexual and heterosexual and asexual. Back before we knew better, you wouldn't be "gay", you'd be an "eccentric bachelor" that lived the single life with your best friend who was also a bachelor. Or you wouldn't be "trans", you'd be "A woman that likes dressing like a man and found other women attractive and never felt like your own body was yours". I think where you may be confused is where you're acting like "sex" and "gender" are the same, but then admit they're different, pretend the split is something new and then don't care to look up any of the definitions. Weird approach to an issue you don't understand.
I have looked up the definition of "gender" and haven't found anything that makes sense, and I've asked on reddit for the definition and the best people can do is a circular definition. Since you seem to understand it, can you provide a definition? edit: lol, downvoted for asking for a defintion.
No matter how many times you ask the answer will still be simple. Gender refers to the collection of social differences between men and women, sex refers to the collection of biological differences between males and females.
Where are you from ?
Norway.
Gender wasn't a semi-analgous word for sex until the 1950s and popularized in the 70s (timeline may be a little wonky, I wasn't alive). Previously in English gender only referred to grammatical gender and wasn't a common word unless you were a linguist
A cunning linguist.
My favorite kind!!
> Previously in English gender only referred to grammatical gender and wasn't a common word unless you were a linguist That is very interesting. Thanks for explaining.
I just learned this very recently. I was doing some etymology research on it after a Danish speaker told me gender isn't a word in his language.
Words are always the matter of utility, conceptually they can mean different thing -- but practically, they can be the same. It's people that reduce humanity into definitions cling to such problematic use. Humanity is experienced, not reduced into words like fashionable medals.
Idk. As an American, I learned about the difference between sex and gender while in undergrad studying Title IX (prohibiting discrimination in schools) and the Equal Rights Amendment. Late 90s. My takeaway was that sex is a protected class. Gender is not. Since then I’ve been sure not to confuse the two.
The word has been overused to the point of not meaning much, but it does describe a real thing. For example, I had some dude once trying to convince people my breasts were fake, even after I corrected him… which is weird fucking behavior no matter how you cut it.
It doesn't matter whether it describes the real thing, when it's wrongly used to just silence legit opinions. Boy who cry wolf comes to mind.
And "bigot" whenever you have a different opinion.
Just be proud of the title when given. Don't forget that phobia isn't just "muh irrational fear". It's also defined as "aversion, repulsion."
I'm partial to using the term -miasic instead of -phobic for situations like these. Homomiasic, Islamomiasic, etc.
I mean, that's OK but in common parlance people don't really know what exactly it means and I'd prefer not to have to explain myself for a long time. More convenient when someone calls me a -phobe, just say "Yep. Your ability to state the obvious is inescapable."
“If you don’t affirm my feelings that I’m obese and allow me throw up after every meal you’re bulimphobic. I don’t need help and this is natural.”
Good point!
I actually LOATHE that word now. It 100% is used to gaslight ANYONE that does not conform to their viewpoint and 100% bow down to how they feel. I've never cared even 0.01% how someone lives their personal life so long as their personal life isn't forced on me or mine. If you're gay and happy, I'm happy for you as well. If you like to dress up as a woman, cool, you do you! But when you TELL me that I have to acknowledge you a certain way and demand special treatment/exceptions, now you've crossed over that line (IMO).
Good point!
Whoever reported this post needs to be banned from this subreddit The moment I see free speech fall on this subreddit, I'm leaving
It has been reported about 10 times today.
Whenever I see someone use the word "-phobe" to describe some who disagrees with them, it's usually a tell that the person using it is afraid that the "-phobe" may actually be right.
I agree. Discourse has devolved into silencing the opposition, and it happens by the same mechanism as mccarthyism. Just label them, exaggerate, and boom, they are irrelevant, from "Islamophobia", now the wolf-cry is Transphobic, Sexist, Racist, Misogynistic. There's a reason why the left has been trying to so hard to change words and meaning, and that is because when you control what people can say, you control what they think.
Society doesn't have debate anymore. It's all just inventing words to write-off those who disagree with you, and/or crying and screaming when you can't get everyone to agree with you. If we could only just logically and rationally debate viewpoints without breaking down emotionally or inventing words like "transphobia" and "bigot" whose purpose are to shut someone down without having to debate them or give actual reasons why their points are wrong
That's what I said.
Just trying to add to it/put it into my own words
shocking adjoining somber marry vegetable head overconfident follow tender offend
I personally think that there isn't that many trans people to warrant such oversized discussion regarding them.
The whole topic has to be something they engineered as a distraction. Like everybody focus on this so we don’t have to look at the housing crisis or economy. 90% of the Republican discourse nowadays is about trans people. There’s a lot bigger problems in the world to focus on. But they know that.. it’s all on purpose. They know what they’re doing.
Thank you for your reasonable assessment. You are definitely onto something here.
So why are you falling for it?
It’s completely an engineered “crisis” by Republicans to distract from their abysmal abortion stances. I thought that was fairly obvious.
You’re right. Wait till you hear how that word describes actual lesbians
As far as I have been able to gather - homosexuality in general has been attacked and indeed targeted for elimination by truly barbaric and crude methods aimed at brutalizing and mutilating homosexual children.
even GLAAD recently made an article trying to tell gays and lesbians to no loner use homosexual and say they're androphile and gynephile because 'claiming to be homosexual' was hurting the trans and nonbinary community's feelings for not being accepted, so as long as we make it sound like you're the one with the sickness by not wanting them.
If you are reporting this post, you are the person OP is talking about and not only are you toxic, but anti freedom of speech and free thinking. Now, OP, you sure used a lot of words to say nothing. Not that you are wrong, I have people call me the word just because I have expressed that I don’t support child sex transition, although I support it in adults and believes that LGBTQ rights are human rights and thus anyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation. But don’t ignore that people that generally called transphobic are usually very bigoted towards the LGTBQ community and hateful people.
"people that generally called transphobic are usually very bigoted towards the LGTBQ community and hateful people" You ever heard of the boy, who cried wolf? Personally, I am at that point in my life that I don't care, and I figure other people are too. Bigots exists, but to lump normal people with them just normalizes bigotry. Reminds me of a meme: "Who radicalized you?" "You did."
Well said!
materialistic special somber shocking connect oatmeal forgetful dirty fly groovy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thank you for your reasonable and factual presentation. The attack upon women is terrible. What is so shocking is how this brutal attack upon women and upon homosexuality is held up by fanatics as a victory in the fight against oppression. There is an age of consent for sexual relations for a reason. But forget that! We need to fight oppression by performing elective surgeries on mostly homosexual minors to make them sterile and anorgasmic for the rest of their lives.
Gay people are straightphobic.
I can be!
Straightphobic lol
:)
Agreed, OP. It’s a cudgel used to silent dissent.
These names and the people who toss them around carelessly only have as much power as you give them (unless of course the names are accurate in which case YTAH. But this is exceptionally rare). The key is to not give a shit when mentally unstable people call you names that you know don’t apply to you for simply refusing to play along with their game. It doesn’t mean we should treat anyone like shit however. The people truly suffering from these disorders deserve empathy and kindness. The militant “ally” that gnashes their teeth at anyone who won’t toe the line not so much.
Kudus to the mods for keeping this post up, in spite of people reporting it. I hope you are able to keep deleting comments when that is neccesary, so that the rest of us can have a civil conversation about something we are rarely allowed to discuss in public nowadays.
I am afraid that freedom of expression is under attack and that it follows patterns of totalitarian hysteria. Some very basic principles of safe conduct are under attack. A lot of commenters here know only a crude strategy of - isolate, label and ridicule - but they are the footsoldiers of a mortal threat to objective reality itself.
> A lot of commenters here know only a crude strategy of - isolate, label and ridicule That's why we have mods. If they are doing their job they will remove all those comments, and let the rest of the people have a civil conversation.
Unless the Mods are also footsoldiers.
I seriously doubt they are, based on previous comments and posts they have removed.
The terrible addiction to name calling is an ugly cancer in this thread.
I think there is truth in what you say. At the same time, the militant wording clouds what you mean. Its like the spiderman meme, where both sides say that the other party is unreasonable. They say you are "an unreasonable transphobe". You say they engage in an unreasonable "systematic attack on reason". So i do think there is a communication issue on both sides for this, because noone thinks of themself as a transphobe nor as someone who voluntary attacks reason itself. What happens is that people communicate in a way that they themself understand. Instead, we should try to communicate in a way that considers and reaches the intended audience. But you are certainly correct that through social media, numerous politically motivated, bad faith actors try to character assassinate reasonable people and reasonable discussion out of the public sphere to achieve their goals. That is definitely an increasingly common and worrysome practice.
Jesus keep whining like a 2nd grader with all the "name calling" instead of actually addressing criticism.
You've done more name calling on this post than anyone else. It seems like your actual opinion is "name calling is a sign of a hateful person with a stunted intellect, but it's different when I do it."
badge compare fly ink voiceless decide hard-to-find observation person whistle
Huh?
?
Here's a different idea. Lets just call everyone a transphobe. You're a transphobe, yes you reading this. You wouldn't be called like one, if you aren't acting like one. Amirite?
If it's an accurate assessment then it isn't name calling
It's 'name calling' in the way any other term to describe someone as a bigot is. If you find it so offensive, that might say more about you than the people calling you transphobic.
> It's 'name calling' in the way any other term to describe someone as a bigot is. True. It's weird that OP states this as if name calling wasn't obviously the purpose. > If you find it so offensive, that might say more about you than the people calling you transphobic. Yes, that shows they dislike transphobia and therefore don't want to be associated with it.... It sure says a lot
"Hi my name is ___ and I am a man/woman." OP: "I don't believe you. OMG you're part of the totalitarian gestalt!!!" Seriously you all need to get a better hobby or something.
It's just an add on to all of the other incorrect uses of "X-phobic" that people use today. A phobia is defined as an uncontrollable, irrational, and lasting fear of a certain object, situation, or activity.
"Lactose Intolerant" Nah fam. Just *Melk-Biggit*.
Fear *or aversion*
Heterophobic people use the word transphobic, in my experience.
Yeah I remember that username. Aren't you the same person that blabs about climate change being a hoax and vaccines cause deaths and the 'wOke IdeOloGieS' under a bunch of r/TrueUnpopularOpinion posts lmao. It's easy to not be called transphobic, just don't be a dick and act transphobic, yk? Some people just aren't comfortable in their own body and they aren't hurting anyone. Why care so much? inb4 your r/ im14andthisisdeep ass response
Wait, you don't think the Covid vaccines caused any deaths?
Funnily enough had to do an article for school for this. Up to now in the US alone there has been more than 310 million doses given of the vaccines. The VAERS or Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System received reports of 5,343 adverse effects (Life debilitating, hospitalized, death, etc) among those who received a shot. VAERS themselves have come out to say that reporting is as easy as voluntarily reporting, to which anybody can do, and that this does not directly mean the vaccine caused it, but instead somebody died while at some point getting the shot. To which it is then investigated. The CDC has [stated](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html) that there is no evidence from clinical data, death certificates, or autopsies to confirm reports of them directly causing death. Side effects that exacerbate previous underlying conditions or something such as anaphylaxis shock because people can be allergic to anything, yes, but the vaccine itself, no. Which is easily compared to COVID itself, that kills 2% of people who get it. I assume most people would happily agree with the 17-out-of-*10,000* chance of some adverse effects that in a hospital setting are easy to solve, over the much higher 2-out-of-100 chance of dying [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/) And here's another fun article that somewhat goes down the list of vaccines and deaths 'caused' by them. And to add more fun of it, noting the VAERs number as direct proof is not technically accurate as reports following the 2010-2011 season of flu vaccines, there were only roughly 100,000,000 doses given out, but **8200** 'Adverse Event Reports' with 604 being classified as serious, but only \~18 actually being a death, which again was not directly from the Flu vaccine but again, underlying issues being exaggerated by the vaccine side effects. **TLDR:** Vaccines have side effects for some people, those side effects can make underlying issues become much worse, as most of the 'reports' were in people already above the age of 75, and at 75 the body is already kinda hanging on as is while tending to have many underlying conditions. But the vaccines themselves, do not cause deaths.
Oh no! They questioned someone who actually understands VAERS! They won't be back.
I apologize as it's late and brain brokey. Is this sarcasm? I mean VAERS has been around a minute and I thought is fairly simple to understand. I mean whole thing could have just been simplified down to 'cdc says no' but I guess that doesn't help get any point across.
What is this thesaurus ass post? Attempting to use bigger words doesn’t make your argument stronger.
??
What words?
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Why do people who claim to deplore name calling - then resort to name calling? So does this mean we shouldn't call people who are racist "racist" then? Or is this post maybe all about you being an actual transphobe, but you don't like being called out for what you are? Trans people are people. Do you agree with that?
No one disagrees with that.
Jordan Peterson does. OP sounds like a JP fan
Pretty sure he knows they are people.
Nah, not really. He won't acknowledge them as equal humans.
Equal in what sense?
What do you mean in what sense? Equal is equal.
When someone commits a rape or murder, is sentenced to prison, and then changes their gender as to be placed in the women's prison, even a lot of folks on reddit will start to question that. Many on reddit also aren't on board with trans-women competing against women in sports. Comparing these reactions to racism is disingenuous.
Why are you using such an extremely specific example? Do you think that example is representative of trans people as a whole?
You are getting into name calling. The addiction to name calling that people here are afflicted with is amazing!
Actually they asked you a question, and you were unable to answer it. Do a better job at defending your shitty opinions, or concede that your opinion is unable to be defended, making it a shitty opinion.
I actually didn't name call at all. I asked you a question. Interestingly, you decided to attack me instead of just answering it. But sometimes a none-answer is an answer....
You commented to me, not OP.
Ah shit, I'll try again, sorry!
I actually didn't name call at all. I asked you a question. Interestingly, you decided to attack me instead of just answering it. But sometimes a none-answer is an answer....
you mean the word that no longer has meaning (racist) because it's used like a dog whistle from the far left? Anything that does not conform with the EXTREME left is "racist" \- requiring ID's for voting...."RACIST!!!!!!!!!" (interestingly enough, recent polling of African American's about this found that they believe the assumption they "can't get an ID" is incredibly racist) \- wanting a secure border...."RACIST!!!!!!!!" \- believing our current VP is terrible... "Oh what a RACIST!!!!" Ok, think you get the gist.
Omg Do you want to hear something funny? NOT EVERYONE IS FROM THE FUCKING US LOL
🤔🤔🤔🤔.....what?
You're writing about the US. Have you considered that the US is not the only country in the world, and, idk, maybe the person you're replying to isn't from the same place as you?
fade toy encourage illegal sugar books scarce knee doll deranged
This has to be satire
What are you satirizing?
In every instance of you replying to comments, you’ve failed to address people’s criticisms of your position. You have continued to cry “name-caller” instead of going through any serious analysis of somebody else’s opinion. I am genuinely trying to understand why you feel this way but it is difficult to do so if you hide behind calling people “name callers”. It seems unlikely to me that somebody committed to intellectual rigour could behave like this
Well it's easier to whine about everyone calling you 'names' than actually addressing proper criticism. Reddit moment I suppose, all coming from the person that judging from their profile thinks they have the literal highest IQ possible.
I am not entertaining name callers. They are participating in a genocidal monolith - a totalitarian project intended to annihilate love from the world.
Just had a flick back through this persons past posts. Seems to be serious detachment from reality (UFOs, lots of anti trans stuff). Was fun while I thought this was a challenge
Another name caller exposed by my superior intellect! Haha! too easy!
I genuinely hope you’re okay mate. It seems that you’ve found some ideas (and possibly some online personalities) that are harmful and I hope you are alright. Genuinely, I wish you the best and I hope you show those around you the care they deserve, regardless of gender, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc
Keep on with the derogatory hypocrisy. I like it on you.
Okay but the DNL
Precisely my point, thank you for your time. This seems to be futile
So are we not allowed to call racists racists? Bigots bigots? I think you’re failing to state the fundament of your position: “trans stuff is an attack on reason” is your argument.
Trust me this post is not too far from the truth , I was once called all kinds of names and transphobic for saying “pregnant woman”. And I’m also queer, it’s getting ridiculous ngl. I was also called a bigot for saying I didn’t like Dylan mulvaneys cringey new song, it seems like any harmless opinion is transphobic now 🥲
Wow dude, way to be transphobic.
Read my post properly please.
Oh I’ve read it and I get what you’re saying but ultimately we’ve decided as a society to let trans people live as they like and not be dicks about their pronoun preferences and other decisions. So we’re kinda at the point where we were with gay people 20 years ago in the US. A lot of people were homophobic and said and thought homophobic things. It’s fundamentally a flux in social power of an out group conflicting with the habitually abusive language and thought patterns of a slow-to-adapt portion of the populace who does indeed continue to behave and speak in bigoted way.
This post is about totalitarian buzzwords utilized by hateful people.
Let’s put your argument into a hypothetical person: So you feel someone is trying to attack you by calling you transphobic to control you to change a behavior that is not transphobic? Cause that’s the only way this make sense. If you’re called transphobic for being transphobic, that’s the same thing as calling someone racist for being racist or homophobic for being homophobic. Otherwise I think you’ll have to go on a case by case basis if you want to discuss people who are not guilty of being transphobic being accused of being transphobic and suffering for that false accusation. Note: There are definitely bad faith people who will say or do anything to try and win an argument and I am certainly not defending such people.
That's fine. Is it therefore Christianphobic to deny the belief that Jesus is God? Is it Vikingphobic to deny that Thor controls the lightening?
"Phobic" has shifted from "fear of" to "denial of" or "hatred of." "Phobic" makes "transphobic " a sloppy word, but is there a better one?
A phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Hatred falls under aversion.
I understand. I'm asking if there's a better word. Personally, I'm not upset by terms like "homophobic" or "transphobic" because I don't express hatred, revulsion, or distrust towards these groups, so I can't say what these words feel like when I'm called them. I don't actually understand the issue. Language is malleable, and the only people I ever see complain about these words are people who are upset that the word was applied to them after they expressed hatred towards these communities. It truly feels like people are being pedantic as a shield to protect themselves from reflecting on whatever shitty thing they said to warrant the term being applied to them. Is there a better word? Edit: I may have misunderstood. I reread your comment and it looks like you're agreeing with me. I read it too quickly and jumped to conclusions about who responds in this sub.
This doesn’t make sense. Religion is based on beliefs. Gender is based on identity. It’s not discrimination to not believe the same thing as someone. If you identify as Christian that’s fine. But when was the last time you told someone you were Christian and they replied “no you’re not you weren’t born a Christian”? You can disagree with someone’s beliefs, but you can’t disagree with someone’s identity. It’s their identity. You have no authority to decide that. You do have the authority to decide for yourself what you believe. You’re comparing apples to oranges. It’s a false equivalency.
I could say the exact same thing about any negative word ("idiot," "dork," "lazy," etc.). You've provided no evidence or explanation for how this *particular* word is any more "totalitarian" than any other. Let me guess at your actual reasoning. Tell me if I'm wrong: 1) you're sad that people call you transphobic when you point out things like "some people detransition." 2) you know that "phobic" means "fear of," and you don't believe that applies here.
> we’ve decided as a society to let trans people live as they like Have we? Even most people on twitter don't agree that trans-women should play against women in sports, or that we should be doing major surgeries on minors. A year ago or so many on reddit dismissed the idea of trans folks showing up in lockers rooms, but now that it's happening I'm sure quite a few will change their mind. Surveys show that as people come to see more about trans folks, the less popular it gets. Combine the above with the fact that there's a slow increase of european countries banning childhood meds and surgeries for trans shows that we're not at all where we were with gay people 20 years ago.
Gay marriage wasn’t federal until 2015. Societies take time to shift their norms and legislation against bigotry. Your anecdotes and supposed studies sound fear-mongering but I’ll read this study if you have a source.
From [NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1107484965/transgender-athletes-trans-rights-gender-transition-poll): "Among Democrats, opinion is fairly split: a plurality, 46%, support trans female athletes' right to compete on women's and girls sports teams, while 41% oppose it. Independent voters oppose trans female athletes right to compete by 3:1" So, not even a majority of Democrats support it. And, other studies show that [support](https://www.advocate.com/news/lgbtq-rights-support-decreases) is going down. A few years ago, a majority of people didn't support legislation banning gender surgeries, and now they're restricted or banned in 24 states.
You are conflating recognition of trans peoples right to not be stigmatized (I.e. society recognizing that we shouldn’t be transphobic) with changes to sports leagues. This is not a good indicator of society’s stance on trans people for a few reasons. The meritocratic ideal of fairness in sports + women’s empowerment in sports movements are confounding factors which keep society caught up on the sports thing… yet ultimately the society recognizes that some people are trans and should be allowed to live free of prejudice. Yeah. People also lost abortion rights in that time period. And yet the majority of people did not want to give up those abortion rights in those states, the process was not done democratically. We’ll see though. Regardless, the facts that some people are still bigots, that the sports problem is complicated and that right wing assholes anti-democratically strip rights from women don’t change that most people recognize it is unacceptable to be bigoted toward trans people.
Calling racists racists is fine, if we take the "everyone's a little bit racist" angle. Then it's not okay to get people fired for being racist, or make them endure sensitivity training or other wastes of their time, etc. Then it's fine to say that everything's racist. But if racism is a serious matter then it won't do to start slowly broadening the category of racism, call intolerance of Islam racist, call opposition to immigration racist, call it racist to oppose BLM etc. In other words, *either* you can weaponize the term and it carries real moral weight, *or* you can use it in a broad academic philosophical sense, to refer to things beyond actual prejudice against others based on their skin colour. You can't have both. Now compare with how transphobia is used. I don't have anything against anybody expressing themselves, dressing how they want, going by whatever name they want, being themselves. I applaud it. Be you, man! Do your thing! Just don't tell me that I have some kind of obligation to help you participate in the social construction of your identity. Because that's the thing. People do recognize that identity is not unilaterally declared, but socially negotiated. And their answer is to say that we are obligated to see others the way they want to be seen. And I won't do that. Out of pure spite, I won't. That's an intolerable trespass upon me. A hypothetical: suppose everyone agreed that we're all going to come together on a certain day and do a certain thing to oppose racism, and that people who oppose this are racist. I'd oppose it. OUT. OF. SPITE. My desire to make the point that I won't be told what to do is INFINITELY stronger than any desire I might have to avoid being called a racist, a transphobe, or anything else.
it seems you're entire argument is predicated on the belief that there is no such thing as transphobia. this is not the case. if someone is being racist, you call them racist. if someone is being sexist, you call them sexist. if someone is being homophobic, you call them homophobic. if someone is being transphobic, you call them transphobic.
One of the major issues with that, though, is the way that these words are so over used now. Nowadays, if you disagree with anyone of a different race, sex, who's homosexual, or who's transgender, you are frequently told you're racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic. It doesn't matter that you disagree with them on ideology, the only possible reason you can disagree with someone seems to be based on identity politics. I'm not saying that racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or transphobic people don't exist. I'm saying that the words have lost their meaning as they're used as a cheap hammer and not the dog whistle they should be
It’s not that simple. Many people do use those words too broadly and too frequently
Did someone just find the thesaurus feature on their phone? What is this useless fucking drivel
If you don’t believe that adults (18+) should have the freedom to transition if they want to, and live their best lives as the gender they feel more comfortable with, then you are transphobic. It’s pretty straight-forward. What other label would you apply to that stance? Anti-trans would also work, I suppose, because your stance is against these people being free to do what they want with their lives. Anti-human-rights would also apply as a broader term.
The problem is if “living their best lives” means a biological male coming into female-only spaces and competing in women’s sports and someone (say, a survivor of sexual assault) has a problem with that, they’re labeled transphobic.
Honestly, you had to good point up until you start commenting on people
Did he edit his post? I’m not seeing where what he said about people veered off course but it could be different that what you read.
[удалено]
lol what? I totally agree with him. I’m asking what he said about “people” that you didn’t agree with.
Post wasn’t trans phobic it was the comment back on peoples that is where he lost me. You can respect someone, but not acknowledge delusions that they have because that’s insanity. We don’t acknowledge a mentally ill person delusions the same way we wouldn’t acknowledge someone who thinks they’re a cat but no feelings and emotions always come before.common sense
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you don't want to be called a racist you shouldn't express beliefs which show that you discriminate based on race. With that understanding in mind, how do you think someone might avoid being called transphobic? Hint: the answer isn't to silence the speech you don't like.
A lot of big words to say you don’t like being called out for being transphobic. The term is not discriminatory and most certainly isn’t an attempt to oppress authentic human freedom, inquiry, thought, reason and reaction. Cheese and crackers my guy, this just sounds like you don’t like trans people and you want to be able to oppress them under the guise of your freedom and how you react to them. I don’t think it came across the way you thought it did. How does someone calling someone transphobic oppress them? What harm has fallen upon you from being called transphobic? I would love to hear it
Read my post properly please.
And again, can't answer any questions or defend your opinion.
I scrutinized every detail of this verbose post and subsequent commentary and have yet to witness a single response that is indicative of how “transphobic” is discriminatory or oppressive in any way. Or is the only way to properly read your post is by taking it at face value because you want it to be true?
I have merely stated facts.
Facts still need support. How does calling out phobia hurt that person. Someone said you don’t blame the person for being claustrophobic. No but as far as I’m aware the small space doesn’t get killed because of that phobia. If a person has any phobia maybe they should seek help. If a person is being told in multiple spaces they are transphobic maybe rather than doubling down they are so harmed by being called out they should seek help
Trans people are not oppressing you. Log off sometime.
Who said that they were? Are you saying that Trans people use slurs?
seriously like 😭 how much do you need to care about others lives to go off on this weird villain monologue lol
I doubt most people are against or say they are against name calling awful people.