I can't help but feel this is aimed at trans activists who protested the Chappelle special. I think he went too far at a couple places, but that's what comedians do.
I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists. I have problematic issues (bipolar, recovering alcoholic) but I don't go around demanding the world accommodate me and calling people who won't listen to me haters.
The Chapelle special acts opposite from its criticism. People are already generally discriminatory to the idea of trans. Chapelle brings this to the front, and makes a number of compelling arguments for why it's "real". Yes, he makes a number of poor arguments about the trans "community" (it's not one community), but if he were to be on stage talking up everything trans nobody is going to listen. People can have opinions without being evil.
> I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists.
You say you're part of several vulnerable populations, but you don't ask the world to "accommodate" you - but the complains trans people have about Chappelle are not about 'making their lives easier.'
Where transphobia (or any prejudicial viewpoint) comes into play is refusing to take vulnerable populations' viewpoints seriously. When trans people point out that they are at much greater risk of violence and also point out studies on how rhetoric contributes to dehumanization promotes violence - you need to take the idea that this isn't "what comedians do" because the impact of saying things about different groups will be different.
Transphobia isn't "disagreeing with trans people" - in this case it's not taking peoples' views seriously because they are trans. When you say "I have problems too but I don't bother people about it" - you suggest that your problems are similar to trans peoples'. It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions, but trans people have far fewer protections[1]. Considering that Texas just recently criminalized being trans under the age of 18, I would really ask you to consider if that view is correct and how it makes you look to say it.
Edit: I got a little ramble-y - in general: oppression is possible when vulnerable populations' descriptions of why and how they are treated worse are not taken seriously. People in vulnerable populations can be wrong (like all of us!) - but in order to point that out in a way that doesn't promote oppression you have to start your disagreement from a point where what you are disagreeing with is a position that the vulnerable population agrees they hold.
You're bringing the law into this but I'm not. That's a different issue. I support laws for trans people to have equal rights.
The world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that. Just last night I was watching Amazon's Bosch and the lead character called someone a "worthless alcoholic." As Vonnegut used to write, "so it goes."
Again, my point is that trans people are not complaining about "people saying negative things" in a vacuum. They are complaining about a specific situation that is happening which goes beyond just the context of the Chapelle special. I don't believe you are actually responding to the most common trans critique of Chapelle and, in not doing that, you dismiss the actual critiques they are making.
Let me put it this way: we don't have to agree about if the Chapelle special is a problem (I don't happen to worry too much about it but I understand why people are angry). But, I want you to imagine that the loudest and most alarmist trans folks are correct - Chapelle is helping a trend of violence against trans people. If that were the case (which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there) disagreeing with them would be supporting violence against them. The best way, in my view, to avoid accidentally supporting that kind of thing is to start your personal thoughts (and public arguments) from the POV of the vulnerable community. That's how we can all avoid accidentally erasing an important critique.
So...assume the most extreme views are correct and start forming our own personal thoughts based on this assumption. Just in case they do turn out to be correct. I'm just not buying that.
Side note: I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".
If you want to see the TERF mindset, and I recognize that the word is thrown around too easily, check out Lily Cade’s speech against trans people. It does advocate for violence.
There are also very real statistics and accounts of violence against trans people. The numbers are shy in comparison to COVID deaths, but you have to account for the number of people who do transition and do not hide it.
Is this priority #1 in the world? No. But we could all show some more god damned humanity to people.
No, if you want to actually understand the radical feminist position on this (and other topics), read the works of radical feminists, not furious ranting blog posts.
I'd recommend these books to start off with - two classics, for the historical perspective, and two more recent ones, that discuss the modern transactivist movement that's so controversial right now:
* Janice Raymond, The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male
* Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism
* Julie Bindel, Feminism for Women: The Real Route To Liberation
> The problem of transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence.
> All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves.
You mean that book by Janice Raymond?
> So, what I think is very fascinating is that there's a connection between the very jolly Blair government and their Gender Recognition Act and Iran. They love transgenderism because it does help to get rid of this serious problem of homosexuality and it enforces gender. Right? So we do need to be fighting, I think, transgenderism as a state 'project' in terms of gender.
That's uh, Sheila Jeffreys being delusional about how supportive the UK government is towards trans people because Iran's very exceptional asymmetry in how accepting they are of trans people and not gay people.
That is indeed an abhorrent speech, and it includes an unambiguous, direct call to violence.
There are indeed very real statistics of violence against trans people. Also abhorrent and inhuman.
In what way would you say we are failing to show humanity to trans people that we _are_ showing to other groups of people whose identities cause them to be the subject of humor as well as the victim of deadly hate crimes?
> So...assume the most extreme views are correct and start forming our own personal thoughts based on this assumption
This mis-represents what I said.
This thread started with "how to disagree without being accused of being bigoted."
You can form your beliefs however you like. That's a different situation than being in conversation with another person. If you "respond" to someone in a way that does not acknowledge the content of what they said, they may reasonably accuse you of not taking them seriously. There are many reasons to not take someone seriously - including having bigoted views. If you want to avoid being accused of being bigoted, I find it helps to acknowledge (even to just say you don't buy them) even the most extreme views of someone in a vulnerable population. It is polite and it keeps you in conversation with the other person.
If you don't want to be in conversation with someone then, of course, you don't need to acknowledge what they say - but they may be upset with you and accuse you of bias. That's just...life.
I think it's good practice to be skeptical of the views held by powerful people and give more slack to more marginal views I find less credible, but that's a personal belief and it has limits.
> I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".
It's choosing to make a public statement on an issue in a way that leaves out ('erases') something that an impacted group thinks. How big a deal that is depends on the groups involved and the seriousness of the topic.
For example, when okareaman said "[t]he world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that" they are implying that trans people are upset about people saying negative things. That is probably true - but that's not the complaint about Chapelle's jokes. By pretending that the complaint is simpler (and focused on personal preference rather than an environment of violence and criminalizing of trans identity) - they 'erase' those complaints in how they discuss it. Another example could be when people ignore the different economic conditions that Millennials and Baby Boomers face and complain that any lack of Millennial success is due to personal flaws. We could talk about more extreme examples, but I hope this makes what I mean clearer.
Separately from my other reply, I'm curious whether you'd agree with the statement that the solution to bad speech is more speech. Because along with the most extreme views tend to come the most extreme solutions, most commonly suppressing undesirable speech. Boycotts are the most widely accepted ways of achieving this, but they don't usually work when the public doesn't agree with the boycotters.
And it's clear (to me anyway) that if one believes speech leads to violence, and if less extreme measures don't achieve the results you want, one will eventually attempt to have speech such as Chapelle's comedy routine legally defined as incitement of violence.
It is decidedly not incitement, according to the current legal definition, which I endorse. What do you think?
> It's clear (to me anyway) that if one believes speech leads to violence, and if less extreme measures don't achieve the results you want, one will eventually attempt to have speech such as Chapelle's comedy routine legally defined as incitement of violence.
I don't think this follows from the current jurisprudence on speech at all. I.e. we have a long a successful-ish tradition of sorting out speech that does or does not lead to violence without making blunt judgements like you describe. There's a long legal history of untangling legally censurable speech from speech that might incite violence but that incitement is not clear enough to use the law to restrict it.
I do not personally feel that Chapelle's comedy routine invokes violence (FWIW I have never spoken to anyone else before, it just did not seem like a big deal) - the root of this thread was "I feel like I can disagree with someone without being hateful" and I was just pointing out how they could do that (and also that the view they disagreed with wasn't generally held by the group they attributed it to). So...if you don't want to be viewed as transphobic, it's a bad strategy to claim staw-man the arguments trans people are making.
That said there's a lot to talk about here and clearly I haven't been fully successful in communicating what I want!
In general, I would say that the idea of "a solution" to bad speech is kind of questionable. Speech acts are part of a tapestry of ideology and rhetoric that can be engaged to all sorts of ends. Treating it as an isolated action feels out of sync with reality to me. Different kinds of bad speech will have different responses - often depending on how much power and influence the speaker has. For instance, there are many people who advocate pretty extreme reactions to Chapelle that I don't think are warranted - but the chance of them going into effect seem very small so I don't spend much time on it. It's not enough info to just look at the text - you have to also look at context.
P.s. sorry for the late response, I had a busy day yesterday.
I agree with your points but his particular joke was about transphobia vs racism. That trans and gay people can turn on their white privilage in a second to attack black people, including using cops to attack black people, knowing cops are trained to fear black people and use excessive force against them.
Of course he isnt taking into account people who are both black and trans but in only this one case, you need to actually understand the joke first.
All that said, Netflix is also wrong because as employees of Netflix the people will be linked to this content weather they like it or not and it doesnt matter what content you are talking about weather its The Bodyguard(Islamophobic), Dave Chapelle(Transphobia), Squid Game(anti capatilist or anti communist depending on whi you ask) or probably the worst, Cuties(GOP and Qanon has diluted this word, but pedophilia). If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved.
Overall this is a complex issue with multiple layers and I say this all as a hardcore leftist.
> If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved.
Like working for a tobacco company, your name and reputation will be tarnished by that association. The solution is obvious: don't work for that company.
Or maybe Netflix will start to implement solutions like those used by the pornography industry; hire sys admins, programmers etc under a shell company that doesn't share the name of the main business. So rather than putting "Software Developer at Pornhub.com" on your resume, you can put tell people you worked for "MindGeek".
It’s transphobic in the “hydrophobic” sense. I don’t think he merely pushes back on activists; I find he delegitimizes the movement altogether.
Which, disclaimer, I do think anyone should be free to do. But people who are offended must be free to share their thoughts as well, then.
It’s akin to saying alcohol addiction isn’t a real addiction. It’s not that you’re making fun of alcoholics, the idea of an alcohol addict, or the behavior and recovery of an alcohol addict — You’re instead devaluing the idea that someone can be addicted to alcohol, falsifying their reality.
Sure, many people can laugh at that, but it’s only going to be the people who can’t relate. The people who have never been familiar with or been victim to substance abuse can probably laugh at the idea that you can just “stop drinking right now, there, problem solved, now what was so hard about that?” because the idea is so foreign to them.
Humor will always be divisive, which means as a comedian you alone wield the responsibility for where that line will be drawn. Chapelle intentionally draws it on personal identity.
I think we can support better comedy than that. Anyone can make an in-crowd; A great comedian makes you the subject and makes you laugh about it too.
You should read up on Bedlam Hospital and learn more about how privileged we are to not be born in that place and time. Trans people don’t have the same luxury of safety today.
No more alcohol consumption in movies then? Romcom heros can't enjoy champagne at their wedding in the end of the movie, because that doesn't accommodate recovering alcoholics who suffer in the mainstream culture of drinking during special occasions?
I understand the logic of that, but I don't think the industry should actually go through with that. Such well-meaning content restrictions would unduly restrict artistic expression. Content warnings about alcohol/drug use should be sufficient to warn away anybody who (understandably!) wants to avoid that sort of content.
Not sure what that steep price is you would pay to 'accommodate' trans people? It requires nothing on your part except for acknowledging and respecting their existence.
OP very clearly writes that they "don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists" who, unlike him, "demand the world accommodate".
Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.
If you don't like the thought of buttfucking, don't. If you don't like the thought of people who identify differently from their biological sex, don't. If you don't like the thought of eating kale, don't. It's simple, it costs you nothing. Nothing at all.
> Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.
But OP is letting them live. Unless you are alleging OP is running around killing trans people??
Your comment, like speech in general I admit, doesn't tell the whole truth.
"Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live."
This isn't true as they are asking that comedians to not make jokes about them. Dave Chapelle nor any comedian that I know of go around saying trans people should not be allowed to live. Or have I missed something?
Shifting goalposts, are we, after your 'clearly' comment did not even contain a grain of truth about what OP posted?
And yes, you are missing something. Go ahead and watch Chapelle. The issue isn't that he makes a joke about trans people. Sure, I'd assume people in general may not like having jokes made at their expense, but that's not the issue. The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported. As much as I like Chapelle and his amazing ability to do hour-long stand-ups where he doesn't even tell jokes and yet you're mesmerized, I'll have to side with the 'punching down' argument. This campaign of his will not age well.
I understand his frustration, and, in his words, jealousy, to see how far LGBTQ+ rights have come compared to the much older issue of Black rights, but that's a really poor justification to rant against the former.
Just imagine that same setup to watch someone rant for an hour against women suffrage, or gay or Black rights, etc. Sure, some will like this.
> The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported.
Why is that an issue?
Their cause is to enact a redefinition of "woman" and "man" (and in some contexts, "female" and "male") in terms of so-called gender identity, rather than sex.
This is a sweeping, fundamental change to how most people understand those terms, and there is growing evidence of some very negative outcomes of doing so.
Of course there will be pushback on this. And it's not a bad thing to do so.
For me that's the only interesting discussion to be had here. Separation into female and male leagues were installed partially because of sex (so that it's fairer), but initially mainly because of gender (women must not do the same fun things we do).
Then again, it is 'unfair' that Simone Biles has the physique she has that fits to her chosen sport better than mine; Michael Phelps likewise; Alex Honnold processes fear differently from most of us, etc.
> Separation into female and male leagues were installed partially because of sex (so that it's fairer), but initially mainly because of gender (women must not do the same fun things we do).
I don't know all the history of it so I won't make claims about how it started. But what you're saying does not describe the reality of highschool sports as I experienced it.
I was a competitive swimmer in highschool; the team was split 50/50 between boys and girls. We all swam in the same lanes of the same pools, swimming the same practice given by the same coaches. Virtually all of us were taught how to swim by the same woman. The only separation was the locker rooms, and the competitive events during meets. The events were the same, 100m, 500m, etc, but segregated by sex. The performance gap post-puberty was immense. The fastest girl on my team, an incredible outlier with Olympic ambitions, was slower than about 5 of the guys. If the sport were blind to sex, the team probably would have had a 90/10 ratio, rather than 50/50. This would be grossly unfair to women.
To add to this, the Women's Olympic Ice Hockey teams of the US and Canada -- both professional and highly skilled teams, have been known to practice against high school level and/or high school aged boys teams and both national teams don't always win either.
I am not saying any of this to discredit the hard work and skill these women have accomplished, but at the end of the day biology is biology.
As an avid hockey fan, I think that the two sexes play a similar, but slightly different styled game (male professional leagues allow contact unlike female leagues), but I think we should celebrate and enjoy the differences each style that hockey or any game has to offer.
Are there people passing laws to fuck with people with bipolar disorder? Are there people telling you that you’re incorrect or even mentally ill because you identify as a recovering alcoholic?
You clearly don’t have mental illness or a drug addiction. Yes, absolutely, you are severely discriminated against with either of those. People see you as utterly unreliable, weak, and unworthy of the kinds of respect afforded to able minded people.
This is why you never, ever, ever take advantage of "mental health" or "addiction" resources provided by your employer.
It doesn't matter what they tell you about confidentiality. Just get the care you need through your insurance and avoid the potential honeypot.
Edit: This comment is heavily biased towards an American audience where at will employment, and health insurance rather than government benefit, are the norm.
ADHD and other related mental illnesses aren't even allowed to get pilots licenses. People who are nuerodivergent have to be very careful who they tell about their minds.
I don't know what trans people go through, but neurodivergents are definitely targeted, and have been sentenced to death in the past.
Do people tell you that you are not really an addict or mentally ill, that that's not even a thing, and that it's just a phase you grow out of once you simply make up your mind?
[edit] Ok, got it. I don't mean to question anyone's personal experience, and sorry that this is what's happening to you.
Also, I don't want to 'rank' the degree of marginalization different groups experience, that's not at all what I'm after. Ideally, none of this would exist and everyone would just live happily ever after.
What I mean is that I don't see a national debate, through politicians or 'celebrities', that deny the existence of, say, alcoholism.
But again, I don't mean to imply that those groups don't suffer. Also, I can just be wrong.
This comment screams of lack of awareness. We actively drug test people for jobs and deny them employment. It is literally baked into the acceptable reasons to discriminate against people. The stigma is massive. It has been changing primarily because white, suburban people have been losing family members to opioid overdoses, but the stigma is still very real in most the country.
I've lost a lot of friends. I've had people tell me they can't stand me because their Dad was an abusive alcoholic. I lost a job because of a manic episode. I know it's hard for normies to understand so I have compassion for their lack of understanding.
really bro? there are plenty of laws that fuck with alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts, etc, and every single civilized society in the world does everything they can to prevent children, teens and young adults from picking up those habits. and it is also perfectly acceptable to express negative feelings about addicts in general
as for bipolar disorder and other such things, at least it is acceptable to call them what they are - mental illnesses, and to suggest to get treatment
There's an important distinction here. To quote that page:
> Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics.
Being transgender is not the same as having gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the (sometimes) associated distress. It is effectively an administrated diagnosis, without it many trans people would not be able to access treatments they need.
The pages goes on with:
> The diagnosis was created to help people with gender dysphoria get access to necessary health care and effective treatment. The term focuses on discomfort as the problem, rather than identity.
We live in a country that stigmatizes, under-researches, and under-treats most mental disorders.
Most people who think pointing out "gender disphoria" is a "mental illness" is a good point would be shocked and disappointed when they find out what the standard treatment for patients with gender disphoria is.
Yes. According to the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), alcoholism, or alcohol use disorder (AUD), is a diagnosable mental illness.
The DSM is a book full of things that (a particular group of) academic doctors think should be considered to be illnesses. It's previously included homosexuality and "gender identity disorder" (transgenderism).
It's a not a bad source, obviously, but being in a book does not make things diseases or not.
That said, in my (medical) opinion, alcoholism and other addictions are much better to be considered (and treated) as diseases.
You minimise it as "being in a book". The book is: "a publication by the American Psychiatric Association for the classification of mental disorders". Are you part of the psychiatric field?
well thanks, you probably didn't see that what I posted was in response to the question "Are there people telling you that you’re incorrect or even mentally ill because you identify as a recovering alcoholic?"
We've had recovering-alcoholic presidents (USA), but it'd be very difficult to see a trans president anytime soon. The intensity of ostracization is not at the same level.
> it'd be very difficult to see a trans president anytime soon.
People would have said the same thing about the likelihood of having a gay president 15-20 years ago. Instead, we had an openly gay and married presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, do quite well in the last election with his homosexuality not being a major point of the conversation.
The amount of progress on gay rights and the public's perspective on LGBTQ rights has been extremely fast. I think (and hope) that you are wrong and that society will be ready for a trans president much sooner than you anticipate.
There are order of magnitude 15x as many gay people as transgendered people, so you’d expect by chance alone that it would be quite rare for a transgender person to be elected to a role that is contested every 4 years and changes every 5 years on average.
I think society will be ready long before the statistical chance of an otherwise front-runner happening to also be transgender is likely to be satisfied.
BTW, that was literally the joke Dave made. That progress on LGBTQ rights was so fast that they can still use their white privilage against people who look like Dave if they are both white and LGBTQ+. Meanwhile people who marched with MLK jr had to march again in 2020 after Geroge Floyd's murder and in the 90s after Rodney King and again recently due to voting rights and racist redistricting laws.
Dave's mistake was he didnt take into account people who were part of both minority groups and face opression on two counts.
I disagree. In particular, there is not a gay president. How did Pete Buttigieg do well? He dropped out, ranking behind Biden and Sanders. In other words, he was supported by but a fringe group. Just him running means nothing.
It will be a while before a trans president is a realistic prospect. The U.S. have yet to elect a female leader of the country 40 years after that was a thing in the UK, and 20 years after Germany. The U.S. now have an openly gay secretary of transportation, hardly a key position in the administration. Germany had their openly gay vice-chancellor and secretary of state a decade ago.
Seems like part of the general pattern of “if you are not with us you are against us” attitude. Now a days it’s not enough to not be for-[some injustice], you have to be actively anti-[some injustice] and tell the world that you are. Otherwise you are a bad person.
The main point being raised by trans activists is "please let us live our lives and not be horrible to us". There's really not a whole lot more to it than that.
So if somebody's "pushing back" on that, I think it's pretty fair to call them transphobic.
There is a lot more. You are forced to list pronouns, declare your gender at conferences, read daily articles about trans people in all major newspapers.
Prospective Supreme court justices have to delegate the definition of "woman" to a biologist.
And you'll be called transphobic at the slightest infraction of the ever growing set of rules.
The whole rainbow movement exists to gain positions, money and power and to have a free pass to yell at dissenters.
It really feels like there is real split in the "trans-community". Between those who actually just want to identify with their new gender quietly and get on with their lives. With only people around them accepting them.
And then the online and it's allied that push for all sort of weirdness and political visibility and gains.
Many don't have much issues at least those to air in public about first one. The later one seems to aim in places also ruin things that they enjoy. Just for signalling and power.
Does this apply equally to those promoting trans agendas in the comments?
I ask because here we are, in a thread specifically about these kinds of issues, and you are threatening my account with termination for disagreeing. I don’t see any threats made to the people on the other side, despite posting incredibly divisive/controversial views.
When you selectively moderate along ideological lines you harm the community. I could understand removing these types of posts from say, a technical update about AWS as it’s off topic. This post however is about social issues and the comments are about social issues. Perhaps you think that’s off topic for HN, so maybe remove the topic entirely?
We don't ban accounts for disagreeing, but for breaking the site guidelines. Your account was the most flamewarrish one in the thread by a large margin. If you think I missed a worse offender, I'd be happy to take a look, but from what I saw your comments were the most aggressive (in both quality and quantity). If that's right, then you're in no position to point fingers at others.
I remember when the first person I knew disclosed that they were trans. The pronoun thing was weird for a day or two. But it's no more a burden than using "they" with you since I don't know your gender.
Calling trans people "delusional" is transphobic. If you don't think of yourself as intolerant, you're probably experiencing cognitive dissonance about the whole thing. If you're not homophobic, ask yourself why you're being so reactive about this.
I grew up in a time when "fag" was tossed around very casually. When I realized that the use of that word hurt people, I stopped. These are not hills to die on.
Given that you've clearly decided that trans activists have "delusions" I'm not sure there's much hope, however...
- What changes to your language are they demanding? If you mean they ask you to refer to them in a particular way, then this is not an uncommon thing. People often ask to be referred to in a particular way. For example, most people don't like being called "fruitloop".
- If what you mean by "anti-scientific ideas" is that that people exists who either a) are not conventionally male or female, or b) feel very strongly that their gender is not the one assigned to them at birth, then I would argue that these ideas are not anti-scientific at all. There is a huge amount of nuance in the science of human development that is left out in the "conventional" wisdom.
I'm a non-binary person, a scientist, and a medical doctor. So I am obviously invested here on several fronts.
Hopefully it was accidental and not a sleight of hand, but I hope you realize you pivoted a statement about the trans activists being pushed back against (that they are “deluded”) to being about trans people as a whole. I feel like this kind of pivot happens so often in bad faith that people now do it subconsciously and not even necessarily in bad faith but simply out of habit.
Similarly, (but not necessarily in the exact same vein,) there is an overarching sentiment that all trans people agree with the broader LGBT community, but it’s definitely not true.
Totally agree. The charitable interpretation is the right one to make if you actually care about arguing the ideas. I'm sure my philosophy professor would be very upset with me.
Did you mean to reply to me? I have not really made a statement about the actual topic because it is personally irrelevant to me. I just want people to argue in good faith, even if at this point a reasoned discussion seems impossible. (And just to be explicit, by that I mean, we’re probably not going to see eye to eye, so I’m probably not going to engage with your rhetoric. Sorry.)
You are aware of the existence of physically intersex, hermaphroditic, and androgynous humans? Are you aware that trans identifying people frequently exhibit physiological characteristics, such as extremely low sperm count in born-male people? Are you aware of the existence of cultures that officially recognize multiple genders, like in Samoa, Mexico, India, & Chile?
Your own example of race is telling, since race is not binary. What race should someone call themselves, if they have a father from Finland, a mother from Zimbabwe, and are born in Germany are a German citizen and only speak German?
What are you scared of? Why are you offended enough by what gender someone else feels to call it delusions and lies? Is it a lie to call someone Nathan when they ask you to?
"please let us live our lives... not a lot more to it"
But there is more to it. There are issues about women's sports, public education, the ethics of irreversible medical procedures on minors without an objective diagnosis, etc.
You explicitly avoided the controversy, and it's not really fair to do that.
I do really think that what most trans activists (and most trans people) want is "please let us live our lives". That said, I'm in Australia, and maybe things are really different wherever you are.
Of course, "live our lives" includes trans kids being able to live their lives too, being safe at their school, etc. And trans people should be able to play sport if they like, it's a healthy thing to do.
As far as social sport goes, I personally prefer mixed sport, but I think that the excitement over trans people playing in women's leagues is unnecessary. At the professional level, I can understand a need for a bit more precision, but my understanding is that the international sporting bodies have regulations and they (the sporting bodies) don't seem to think there's a big issue.
As far as "irreversible medical procedures on minors" goes... (and this is the one that spurred me on to reply) ...it's just not a thing.
And again, I'm in Australia, but I'm pretty sure this applies globally. To my knowledge, we simply do not perform reassignment surgery on children.
The WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) guidelines (available here: https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_... ) clearly state that one of the criteria for surgery is being "the legal age of majority to give consent for medical procedures in a given country"
"May include medical, surgical... For children and adolescents...crucial to overall health".
Logically, it kind of has to be an issue, right? Current medicine isn't even close to being able to change the sex of an 18 year old. So some people will want to start a lot earlier in a lot more cases. And people will push the boundaries with hormones, which in kids absolutely will cause irreversible changes.
So I stand by my claim that you are unfairly dismissing the controversial aspects of the argument.
> the Chappelle special. I think he went too far at a couple places, but that's what comedians do.
I want him to stop doing trans jokes because he's not good at them. They aren't funny. As far as I can tell, they are attempts at cheap shock humor that might make sense for a new comedian to try to get some headlines, but not something someone with fame and talent should have to stoop to.
Right. This memo is directed at offended Netflix employees, not offended [ex]Netflix customers. Conservatives on facebook complaining about Netflix being too woke and weird (Cuties, etc) isn't what this memo is about. This is about netflix management reasserting their position of power (particularly with respect to content selection) over netflix workers.
> but I don't go around demanding the world accommodate me
I think you'd feel very different about what this sentence really means if people maliciously assumed you were drunk driving or a pedofile just because you wore a budweiser shirt.
Or if there were plans for laws making bipolar specialists illegal, or outlawing non-christian addiction programs.
Or if there were laws forbidding teachers from mentioning that psychological disorders in general (but especially bipolar) exist and required them to snitch on you to your parents and the state if it were suspected that you were bipolar.
one thing that struck me is how different views on transgenderism are in the US, for example, than my country.
In my country, transgender actually FOUGHT for the right to NOT be counted as a man or a women, and finally won the right to be counted as a third gender, with the rights that follow it.
That mean that, the slogans here are NOT, for example, that "Transwomen are Women" but instead, "transwomen are TRANSwomen" (i.e. don't lump them with man/women, labels which are considered cis-specific.) or that they demanded SEPERATE bathrooms for their gender, and DON'T want to be forced to be use men/women bathrooms.
Such opinions would be considered extremely transphobic in the US, but are what trans-people actively fought for here.
I'm not saying my country is a beacon for LGBTQ+ rights, simply pointing out that issues that the western Transgender community face (Gender Identifications issues from TERFs, or bathroom related panics) would simply be a non-issue here because the clash simply doesn't arise in the first place!
Women wouldn't feel threatened by transwomen, because they would never want to step into each other's territories in anyway.
I am not sure what the ideal is, just that western trans community might need to look at a global view and realize that perhaps what they consider transphobic, are actually sought-for rights by members of their own community in the East, and how they can better move forwards in this regards.
----
also, I do need to highlight that rules do not translate into ground realities, which are often bleak regardless of legislation. Discrimination and violent attacks are rampant here, we are in no way a utopia.
but here are some links which might better explain what I was trying to convey:
Trans people in Pakistan fought for the state to recognize a traditional 3rd gender. Most European cultures and offshoots don't have an equivalent.
1 of the biggest issues now in the US is if trans youth should receive any affirming treatment. Even puberty blockers. Calling them a 3rd gender wouldn't change the sides.
Dave Chapelle is a hero. Downvote me all you want but drawing a distinction between sex and gender is pure delusion at best and a mental disease at worst.
> if you’re not trans you may not understand transphobia very well but it’s similar to white people saying they don’t think something is racist
This is just a terrible, terrible argument, that leads to a continual ratcheting up and broadening of the definition of "transphobia".
Transphobia should mean only "fear or hatred of trans people".
What it comes to mean, however: questioning self-identification, questioning trans women in women's sports, questioning trans women in women's spaces, questioning the use of puberty blockers in young children, among others. With these now defined as transphobia, it is no longer necessary to acknowledge any principled, genuine objections or concerns there, because even raising these topics is transphobic (or TERF) by definition. The sad thing here is, a frank discussion might indeed allow trans women and bio women to come to some accommodation, but insisting that some people are the only ones who can define certain words like transphobia elides those conversations.
No. Words matter and words belong to us all, not only to those who decide they want to determine the bounds of debate. I say all this with huge, massive respect to the gender warriors out there. I promise, these tactics win skirmishes but will lose the war.
> > if you’re not trans you may not understand transphobia very well but it’s similar to white people saying they don’t think something is racist
> This is just a terrible, terrible argument, that leads to a continual ratcheting up and broadening of the definition of "transphobia".
I don’t follow. While people not understanding racism is a very real phenomenon caused by the fact that white people in the USA are the dominant group and considered “raceless” and the “default” while non white people get all kinds of subtle discrimination regularly. It makes sense that non white people would be better judges of racism than many white people. Why would this not also make sense for trans people?
> It makes sense that non white people would be better judges of racism than many white people.
I don’t get this
Racism is a clearly defined concept - from Oxford dictionary:
1. prejudice, discrimination or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular ethnic group
2. the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
Why do you think some races are better than others at judging racism ?
I have had black friends point out incidents of anti-Black racism to me that I definitely hadn't seen before, but I have as often had black friends perceive racism where definitely none existed, and black friends who did not see it where it definitely did. It happens enough, that I think only people who don't have much interaction with different races and classes would believe that only black people can tell what racism is. People have all degrees of sensitivity, empathy, perceptivity and hair-trigger paranoia; sometimes in the same person.
A blanket ban would be I think. Having a blanket ban demonstrates that you are judging transgender people on their transgender status alone, rather than making an evidence-based assessment of whether a particular athlete has an unfair advantage.
The International Olympic Committee, for example, has a framework for precisely this (you can read it here, it's pretty easy going: https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2021/11/I... ) and I think it demonstrates really well that they've put a good amount of thought into being fair.
I think you'd have a hard time saying that the IOC framework is discrimination.
> Is-it discrimination to forbid trans-women to participate in the same sports category as bio-women?
It is absolutely discrimination to discriminate between cisgender and transgender competitors.
Whether it is acceptable discrimination is a value question, whether it is legal or permissible discrimination depends on the relevant law and rule framework, but it is unmistakably discrimination.
> This is just a terrible, terrible argument, that leads to a continual ratcheting up and broadening of the definition of "transphobia".
> Transphobia should mean only "fear or hatred of trans people".
> What it comes to mean, however: questioning self-identification, questioning trans women in women's sports, questioning trans women in women's spaces, questioning the use of puberty blockers in young children, among others. With these now defined as transphobia, it is no longer necessary to acknowledge any principled, genuine objections or concerns there, because even raising these topics is transphobic (or TERF) by definition. The sad thing here is, a frank discussion might indeed allow trans women and bio women to come to some accommodation, but insisting that some people are the only ones who can define certain words like transphobia elides those conversations.
> No. Words matter and words belong to us all, not only to those who decide
If you're opposing transgender people's attempts to secure rights that they are attempting to secure, why should you not be labelled as "transphobic" just because you personally feel that they might be able to get some more limited set if rights that you, as a cis person, are willing to give them?
It's like complaining that people are calling you "racist" for supporting segregation even though you personally feel that segregation is best for black people and therefore you aren't opposing equal rights.
> rights that you, as a cis person, are willing to give them?
The problem with these particular "rights" is that they are not actually rights, but impositions on the rights of others.
It's disingenuous to compare being trans to race or being gay. Race and orientation is an immutable characteristic of the person.
As yet, gender dysmorphia is recognized as a mental illness, which requires therapy, hormones and surgery to accommodate or treat. Arguments about these particular trans rights can also apply to, for example, the rights of schizophrenics to have their delusions indulged by everyone else.
With self-identification, the problem of "rights" becomes even more intractable, because unlike race or orientation, one can just declare oneself "trans" and thereby gain access to, say, physically weaker athletic opponents. Or to more vulnerable sexual prey, in the case of prisons.
> Race and orientation is an immutable characteristic of the person.
That is no more true that it is of gender identity.
> As yet, gender dysmorphia is recognized as a mental illness
So was homosexuality (also, you’ve confused dysphoria with dysmorphia. Also also, the diagnosable condition of gender dysphoria is not the same thing as having transgender identity; they are distinct.)
> which requires therapy, hormones and surgery to accommodate or treat.
People often get therapy, hormonal treatments, and surgery to deal with the failure of their body to conform to their image of their gender assigned at birth, but we don't call the need for these things a “mental illness” or gatekeep access to gender affirming treatments aligned with gender assigned at birth on distress reaching the dangerous levels that would be diagnosable as a mental illness.
> I think GP believes that race and orientation is mutable
Not particularly.
Race and gender are social constructs, and ones identity (and orientation, in the latter case) with regard to either is formed early – and, once formed, immutable or nearly so – as a product of innate traits interacting with socialization around the construct.
(The fact that gender identity can diverge from socially ascribed gender, resulting in demands to alter the latter to conform with the former, does not make gender identity mutable, in much the same way that the fact that people might mistake your race for a different one than your indentity doesn’t make racial identity mutable.)
I'll reiterate my previous comment then: the existence of detransitioners proves that gender identity is mutable.
From reading the accounts of detransitioners, gender identity seems to be more like a political or religious belief than anything else - often stable for long periods of time, but given the right circumstances, can be changed.
I don't think you have argued very well, here. Just minimally addressed some points, ignored others.
>> Race and orientation is an immutable characteristic of the person.
> That is no more true that it is of gender identity.
Not an argument. Clever rejoinders will not convince people that mentally ill men should be in women's prisons or sports teams. You will have to actually engage with the concerns that people have. How do you deal with self-identification and predatory men going into women's locker rooms? Just denying that it could ever happen is not going to work.
>> As yet, gender dysmorphia is recognized as a mental illness
> So was homosexuality
Not an argument. Declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness does not mean gender dysphoria is not.
As for the rest, we literally do call that behavior mental illness.
I'm fine with people doing whatever they want with their own bodies as long as their behavior doesn't impact other people.
Taking female hormones, great. Taking female hormones and then insisting that everyone else perceive them as women is not.
For folks without 1:19:51 to spare, can you summarize the points of that video?
I'm not familiar with Chappelle's other work, but I watched the special (The Closer) and I didn't see what you seem to claim. I noticed:
* The heroine/protagonist is a trans woman.
* Chappelle was meticulous about using feminine pronouns (with one deliberate exception, I'm not going to spoil it, but it was respectful).
* He argued for trans people using their choice of gendered bathrooms.
* He ridiculed folks that are afraid of trans people.
* He directed vitriol at the "militant woke" that harassed and bullied his trans friend.
I'm a left-leaning bay area resident with trans friends. I thought the special was funny and personal and touching and pro-trans. In fact, if someone were to deliberately craft propaganda designed to make middle america comfortable with trans people, I think it would look a lot like this.
I can't help but think that most of the vitriol over The Closer is presented by people who haven't watched it. There's a guy elsewhere on this HN thread who is (still!) irate at Netflix because "Cuties" promotes the sexualization of children. Anyone who actually watched that movie knows that it's quite the opposite. But wow you will not convince him - and he's proud that he's never watched the movie. This seems like the same thing.
Maybe there's some broader context that I'm not aware of (again, this is my only exposure to Chappelle). But The Closer sure doesn't seem to warrant the hate.
Feel free to watch it for 20 minutes on 1.75x speed and just get what you can from it. One of the things I learned as a white guy (before transition) was that expecting marginalized groups to shoulder the burden of education is real draining. I did what I can to explain in my comment that Chappelle was punching down and bringing up old tropes. But I’m exhausted just reading the replies. I watched the video six months ago. I don’t remember the specifics and I don’t have the time today to watch the video again and paraphrase it. Just being honest and direct, not mad or anything. Hope that makes sense. Really tho just 20 minutes at 1.75x speed will get you some of the arguments so give that a shot. It would even be rad for you to come back here and answer your own comment with what you’ve learned. Thanks and sorry I couldn’t be more helpful.
I can understand that trans people murders might be under-reported, but on the other hand, trans people do tend to get into more risky behavior than the general population (the general population includes retirees, children etc.)
Yeah, I might question that line about "more risky behavior", too. [citation needed], as they say. Unless you mean "being trans" is the risky behavior?
> According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, 19 percent of all trans people, and 47 percent of black trans women, have engaged in sex work. This does not take place in a vacuum but in the context of pervasive societal discrimination against trans people in general, and trans women of color in particular.
Due to various injustices, sex work is very dangerous. The 19% of trans people who have done sex work are exposed to elevated risk relative to the general population. That 19% is large enough to put a thumb on the scale.
It's like saying men are more likely to die in workplace accidents. Why might this be true? Probably because a lot of men work in coal mines, which are very dangerous. Does that mean I, an office worker, am more likely to be crushed by a falling filing cabinet than the women I work with? No, probably not. The group statistic doesn't tell you everything you need to know about the risk an individual faces.
> According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, 19 percent of all trans people, and 47 percent of black trans women, have engaged in sex work. This does not take place in a vacuum but in the context of pervasive societal discrimination against trans people in general, and trans women of color in particular.
Comedians make fun of everything and everyone. My opinion is that if you're a "marginalized group" you should be delighted to be make fun of like everyone else.
Would you prefer to be ignored?
I don't know why "humour is not punching down" keeps being repeated recently but that's idiotic. Comedy punches in all directions.
The real problem of the Dave Chappelle special is not that it was transphobic, it was that it was not really funny.
Mental illness probably isn't the right word for it, but hydrophobia is indisputably a disease of the brain. The virus travels from the bite wound up your CNS; when it reaches your brain you die in agony.
I solidly mean #1. I hate that Facebook and others started advertising hard liquor. If I worked at Facebook, I could start a movement among employees to get the ads banned. Another example would be Google employee refusing to work on defense contracts. Netflix management is saying "you can quit if you don't like it" which seems like a reasonable response to me.
As for #2, I wish them all the luck. I'm like most people and take a live an let live attitude. I have no problem with trans women. In fact my father is a closet transvestite (he doesn't know I know) so I'd be hating on my own father.
What I don't like is being called someone who hates if I don't get with their agenda
"Transphobic" means "you failed to accept all my premises as axiomatic and then follow up by agreeing with me".
It's not just trans* activists. *phobic activists have effectively changed definitions such that meaningful debate is no longer possible. No matter what points you try to raise, you get labeled "*phobe" if you express any reservations.
This is a very poor strategy in the long term. In the short term, it suppresses vocal dissent because no one wants to be called names. However, in the longer term the "*phobe" term loses its sting as people realize it's just a way to end an debate without actually debating, so the accuser loses credibility. Activists get more shrill as their tactic's effectiveness wanes, and more people are driven away because who wants to associate with perpetually shrill people? It's an exercise in self-marginalization.
> What Netflix just did wasn't pushing back against this fictious overly powerful activism
As far as I can gather, the walkout happened. The activism in their company isn't fictitious and this memo is a response to it. Of course "overly powerful" is subjective, but evidently netflix management felt the problem was serious enough to address bluntly.
The world view of journalists and politicians is though the lens of Twitter. They live and breathe it. Consequentially, many others see things through the Twitter lens.
That's a strawman, he/ she was asked to raise examples about something and brought up Twitter. That's not the same as having a "world viewthrough the lens of Twitter".
I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists. I have problematic issues (bipolar, recovering alcoholic) but I don't go around demanding the world accommodate me and calling people who won't listen to me haters.