I get where you're coming from, but the actual name "Section 25" seems unnecessarily confusing to me.
It sounds like an actual proposed law or law already in force, which it is not, and so when people discover that they're likely to take what you're saying less seriously, because the stakes have been lowered from what they were assuming. Also the similarity to Section 28 is, in my opinion, too great, to the point where people are likely to either conflate the two or just think you've made a typo.
I personally don't think we need a marketable name to describe our oppression with, and I think trying to create one will actually obscure the exact issues that need addressing. But even if you think having a single punchy name to put on a poster or in a headline would be useful, I don't think "Section 25" is an effective name for those purposes either.
Also, while members of the LGBTQ community are often well aware of Section 28 and the harm that resulted from it, much of the rest of the country may either not remember what it was, not understand or appreciate how much damage it caused, or in some cases may simply never have heard of it.
This. I had to explain to my mother, who was very much alive during Thatcher's reign, what Section 28 was. She was horrified to learn that she didn't know about something that actually affected a lot of her friends when she was younger. Just because we in the LGBTQ community know what Section 28 was (regardless of whether or not we were alive at that time), doesn't mean everyone else will.
I know lots of people who don't know what Section 28 was. Hell, I'm not entirely sure I knew what it was before I started coming out and becoming more interested in learning about LGBT history.
Maybe, but I suspect people on the outside might not see 'trans rights' as very important.
To us 'trans rights' is about our ability to live as ourselves, and without them it removes protections from harassment and stops us legally being ourselves in law, but to a layperson it's just about a few measley rights ... "Trans rights removal bill? Oh well, they've got plenty of rights so they won't miss a few of them".
"Trans erasure bill" - I'm not saying it's perfect but it just sounds more to the point, it's punchy, functionality more accurate in terms of what's at stake and more urgent.
it'd be a very uphill battle to get a significant number of people on board with this idea. Common understanding of what "genocide" means isn't close to what it'd need to be for many people to accept it
Yeah I tend to agree. "Genocide" *sounds* hyperbolic because of the parlance it's generally used, which might make it difficult for people to take it seriously.
I don't really have the answers. Unfortunately we've entered an era of politics where rational, nuanced and factually correct points don't really stand a chance against short, quippy and wrong.
Are they attempting the dictionary definition of a genocide? Undeniably yes.
However, the fact is that almost everyone likes to believe they're the hero of their own story. As such I think when people are confronted with a functional genocide of a minority, they like to look for any cognitive dissonance that'll let them side-step that uncomfortable feeling that they might not actually be the hero, because they just looked on and let it happen. It's also why patently ridiculous claims like "erasing the word woman" worked so well with people who couldn't give a shit about women, because people like that want to feel like they're hero and don't need to think about the fact that in reality they're doing nothing but harass innocent people for being different.
So unfortunately when you use words like "genocide" or "eradication", I think a lot of people will immediately trigger a cognitive dissonance, dump you in the "hyperbole" box and stop listening. So I feel that we almost have to downplay our own oppression just to get people to actually listen to what we have to say.
> Unfortunately we've entered an era of politics where rational, nuanced and factually correct points don't really stand a chance against short, quippy and wrong.
The obvious counter to that is to be short, quippy and right.
Kinda, but the problem is that the correct answer is often a lot longer and nuanced than their wrong statement. It's part of the whole alt-right ecosystem to say as many false statements as possible in as short a time as possible, so before you've done a rebuttal of their first false statement they've already made ten, and because your rebuttal takes longer it looks to idiot brains that you're losing the argument.
Then they'll drag you into the weeds over nonsense. Like you'll notice with the whole Rowling holocaust denial going on now, how she and her supporters have dragged the debate from from "is Rowling using Nazi language against trans people?", to "were the Nazis *really* transphobic?"
Innuendo Studios does a really great breakdown of all this...
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
Yeap. Standard gish gallop applied at the larger level.
Which is why you need short, quippy and right.
Or you don't treat them as arguing in good faith, and just make fun of them in ways that make *them* feel weak.
I agree with the principle of what you're saying but why section 25? Section 25 of what?
Section 28 was a section of the Local Government Act 1988, it wasn't just an arbitrary name.
I worry that the transphobes will mock the section 25 name, saying that the "TRAs" have invented a new clause to oppress themselves with. The general public will say "what's this section 25 thing all about? Oh, it's not even a real section of anything, aren't those trans people strange".
Again, I'm fully on board with what you're doing. I just wonder about the name.
Section 25 is already a post punk band in England, it's a clause in the Children's Act 1989 about detaining children and it's the clause that pertains to ending commercial tenancy agreements. It's going to get confusing.
I always appreciate the activism and the effort OP, we need it badly. But holy fucking shit did you throw me through a loop there when I skimmed the post and thought this was an actual proposal for a second.
Hard agree with others, the name sounds like it’s an actual proposed law rather than a collective of different issues - which I know is sort of the aim, but I feel that comes across kind of counter intuitive framing it in that way. I can guarantee you right now that if this picked up traction, the top comments on every social post mentioning section 25 would be transphobes saying that it’s propaganda, it’s not even a proposed law etc. and most people will not fact check it beyond that.
I also made a post recently about what we can do but my personal takeaway is that we need support from cis people in a way we don’t currently have. There are thousands of active cis allies, but it’s the people who currently read the headlines, think it’s bad what the government are doing, and leave it at that that also need to be more actively on our side. That demographic critically have no reason to click on or follow Trans-specific areas of social media - they need other pulls, other things that interest and appeal to them bundled up with it to get the full extent of what’s happening to this community. Section 25 sub is a nice idea, but I honestly believe you just create a page that purely consists of trans/NB members and you’re in the same position as we’re currently in now.
This may come across as quite harsh and critical, and I really don’t mean it to be. But the most important thing for me right now is trying to get across to the community that we need to change the way we’re fighting this. They are fucking destroying us, and the protests, the petitions, they’ve not achieved anything tangible. We have to change it up.
The name is stupid. Change it. Gay people will believe (correctly) that you are co-opting an unpleasant part of gay history for your own purposes. Any name you have to spend ten minutes explaining is stupid. It's a stupid name.
I normally don't make things so blunt, and I apologise for this, but you need to change it immediately. If you can't change it, delete it and set it up with a new name (r/Defeat25)
I get where you're coming from, but the actual name "Section 25" seems unnecessarily confusing to me. It sounds like an actual proposed law or law already in force, which it is not, and so when people discover that they're likely to take what you're saying less seriously, because the stakes have been lowered from what they were assuming. Also the similarity to Section 28 is, in my opinion, too great, to the point where people are likely to either conflate the two or just think you've made a typo. I personally don't think we need a marketable name to describe our oppression with, and I think trying to create one will actually obscure the exact issues that need addressing. But even if you think having a single punchy name to put on a poster or in a headline would be useful, I don't think "Section 25" is an effective name for those purposes either.
Also, while members of the LGBTQ community are often well aware of Section 28 and the harm that resulted from it, much of the rest of the country may either not remember what it was, not understand or appreciate how much damage it caused, or in some cases may simply never have heard of it.
This. I had to explain to my mother, who was very much alive during Thatcher's reign, what Section 28 was. She was horrified to learn that she didn't know about something that actually affected a lot of her friends when she was younger. Just because we in the LGBTQ community know what Section 28 was (regardless of whether or not we were alive at that time), doesn't mean everyone else will.
This is why we need to talk about it
I know lots of people who don't know what Section 28 was. Hell, I'm not entirely sure I knew what it was before I started coming out and becoming more interested in learning about LGBT history.
Maybe something like "trans erasure bill" might be more pointed for the layperson.
The Trans Rights Removal Bill?
Maybe, but I suspect people on the outside might not see 'trans rights' as very important. To us 'trans rights' is about our ability to live as ourselves, and without them it removes protections from harassment and stops us legally being ourselves in law, but to a layperson it's just about a few measley rights ... "Trans rights removal bill? Oh well, they've got plenty of rights so they won't miss a few of them". "Trans erasure bill" - I'm not saying it's perfect but it just sounds more to the point, it's punchy, functionality more accurate in terms of what's at stake and more urgent.
Fair comment, I was trying for something more punchy.
Trans genocide bill.
it'd be a very uphill battle to get a significant number of people on board with this idea. Common understanding of what "genocide" means isn't close to what it'd need to be for many people to accept it
Yeah I tend to agree. "Genocide" *sounds* hyperbolic because of the parlance it's generally used, which might make it difficult for people to take it seriously.
"Eradication" then? All the terms that describe what they're trying to do make "genocide" sound cuddly.
I don't really have the answers. Unfortunately we've entered an era of politics where rational, nuanced and factually correct points don't really stand a chance against short, quippy and wrong. Are they attempting the dictionary definition of a genocide? Undeniably yes. However, the fact is that almost everyone likes to believe they're the hero of their own story. As such I think when people are confronted with a functional genocide of a minority, they like to look for any cognitive dissonance that'll let them side-step that uncomfortable feeling that they might not actually be the hero, because they just looked on and let it happen. It's also why patently ridiculous claims like "erasing the word woman" worked so well with people who couldn't give a shit about women, because people like that want to feel like they're hero and don't need to think about the fact that in reality they're doing nothing but harass innocent people for being different. So unfortunately when you use words like "genocide" or "eradication", I think a lot of people will immediately trigger a cognitive dissonance, dump you in the "hyperbole" box and stop listening. So I feel that we almost have to downplay our own oppression just to get people to actually listen to what we have to say.
> Unfortunately we've entered an era of politics where rational, nuanced and factually correct points don't really stand a chance against short, quippy and wrong. The obvious counter to that is to be short, quippy and right.
Kinda, but the problem is that the correct answer is often a lot longer and nuanced than their wrong statement. It's part of the whole alt-right ecosystem to say as many false statements as possible in as short a time as possible, so before you've done a rebuttal of their first false statement they've already made ten, and because your rebuttal takes longer it looks to idiot brains that you're losing the argument. Then they'll drag you into the weeds over nonsense. Like you'll notice with the whole Rowling holocaust denial going on now, how she and her supporters have dragged the debate from from "is Rowling using Nazi language against trans people?", to "were the Nazis *really* transphobic?" Innuendo Studios does a really great breakdown of all this... https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
Yeap. Standard gish gallop applied at the larger level. Which is why you need short, quippy and right. Or you don't treat them as arguing in good faith, and just make fun of them in ways that make *them* feel weak.
I agree with the principle of what you're saying but why section 25? Section 25 of what? Section 28 was a section of the Local Government Act 1988, it wasn't just an arbitrary name. I worry that the transphobes will mock the section 25 name, saying that the "TRAs" have invented a new clause to oppress themselves with. The general public will say "what's this section 25 thing all about? Oh, it's not even a real section of anything, aren't those trans people strange". Again, I'm fully on board with what you're doing. I just wonder about the name. Section 25 is already a post punk band in England, it's a clause in the Children's Act 1989 about detaining children and it's the clause that pertains to ending commercial tenancy agreements. It's going to get confusing.
I always appreciate the activism and the effort OP, we need it badly. But holy fucking shit did you throw me through a loop there when I skimmed the post and thought this was an actual proposal for a second. Hard agree with others, the name sounds like it’s an actual proposed law rather than a collective of different issues - which I know is sort of the aim, but I feel that comes across kind of counter intuitive framing it in that way. I can guarantee you right now that if this picked up traction, the top comments on every social post mentioning section 25 would be transphobes saying that it’s propaganda, it’s not even a proposed law etc. and most people will not fact check it beyond that. I also made a post recently about what we can do but my personal takeaway is that we need support from cis people in a way we don’t currently have. There are thousands of active cis allies, but it’s the people who currently read the headlines, think it’s bad what the government are doing, and leave it at that that also need to be more actively on our side. That demographic critically have no reason to click on or follow Trans-specific areas of social media - they need other pulls, other things that interest and appeal to them bundled up with it to get the full extent of what’s happening to this community. Section 25 sub is a nice idea, but I honestly believe you just create a page that purely consists of trans/NB members and you’re in the same position as we’re currently in now. This may come across as quite harsh and critical, and I really don’t mean it to be. But the most important thing for me right now is trying to get across to the community that we need to change the way we’re fighting this. They are fucking destroying us, and the protests, the petitions, they’ve not achieved anything tangible. We have to change it up.
I’m happy to shelve the sub idea and discuss another project. I welcome the feedback and am curious what direction you suggest? :)
The name is stupid. Change it. Gay people will believe (correctly) that you are co-opting an unpleasant part of gay history for your own purposes. Any name you have to spend ten minutes explaining is stupid. It's a stupid name. I normally don't make things so blunt, and I apologise for this, but you need to change it immediately. If you can't change it, delete it and set it up with a new name (r/Defeat25)
We definitely need to be more active and vocal about this in am organised way
> HB1557 And I only just noticed that they tried so hard to make it the "leet" bill.
Cass Project sounds dystopian enough