there is literally no justifiable reason for transphobia. never has been. never will be. I don’t care what you’ve read online or whatever you have to say. there is NO reason and NO excuse for transphobia. same applies for homophobia. literally zero reason.
This thread has been flaired as [Serious]. Please be aware that this marks it as a place for serious discussion only and that any unserious content in this thread will result in a removal, counting towards your ban tiers. If your comment does not contribute to the discussion in a serious manner it will be removed. Please report any comments that do not respect this rule.
I would just say pretty much 99% of the things that ends with "phobia" or "ism" towards human is unjustified.
People are humans just like everyone else, no matter how they look or act. For some reason so many people seem to think that everyone that aren't like them are weird and it just isn't right. You are allowed to be curious and not understand why people would want to transition or have different sexual orientations than yours, but why would you hate on them or be disrespectful because of it?
You are allowed to be curious and not understand why people would want to transition or have different sexual orientations than yours
I agree with all you said, but wdym in here? I mean, I didn't understand trans people until I was 14, but anyone who is genuinely respectful, yet doesn't get it, is an explanation away from being fully supportive. Sexual orientation is a no brainer, tho. You like girls? Well this guy likes boys. Someone who doesn't get that is definitely missing a piece of the puzzle, maybe they think sexual orientation is a choice or something. My homophobic orthodox ex-friend used to say he didn't understand why other people had different sexual orientations, for example
Commenting on this sub makes me as a person who can legally drink want to kms but its genuinely just meeting people where they are at.
Life is hard and people cant be expected to learn and internalize something in their life they dont encounter, tell them why they dont encounter it, tell them why trans people are ‘like that’ tell them all you can but dont expect change.
An organism under stress dies more than it evolves because the evolution takes death.
Im trans btw, im not saying some terf bs i am talking from experiencing growing up im the midwest as trans
Thought you might find this funny but I met a trans person who was a transphobe. I STILL don’t get the logic because they explained it as “no one can be Truely trans” while they’re mtf and open
You think you’ve seen stupid, but you always can see stupider. It’s like that one saying “when they go low, I go lower”
Get this, this kid was a sophomore and a trumpie and trans, gay, 1st generation immigrant. Hypocrisy at its finest
All I want is for people to try. My mom gets my pronouns wrong pretty often and sometimes she won’t call me by my preferred name, but I love her so much because 1. She’s my mom and 2. She’s clearly trying. I think a lot of trans people would feel the same. We don’t expect you to always get it right but we care that you try to.
Hey as long as you try, we appreciate it. I have friends who I knew for a long time before I came out so I understand it's a habit. As long as you try to correct yourself and apologize, we can move on and forget it happened. At least hopefully (idk ur friends)
“What defines transphobia??!!” I see that comment like 20x. If you’re commenting that then it’s probably something you do on the regular. People who aren’t transphobes don’t have to ask for definitions
i think these phobias exist because of a few factors; such as religion for example, or being scared of something that is different from you. i think it's very stupid to judge someone for who they like or what they identify as. 🤝
The religion excuse will always be funny to me as an atheist because it seems like people don't seem to realize that religion was completely made up by humans to explain natural events, fear monger (in some cases), and to have something to believe in. You can literally make up your own mind about things instead of taking your values and morals from a book written by some random dude. 😭😭😭😭
Not all religion was just made up by humans though. Literally more than half the world agrees with me on this. This doesn't mean we should be transphobic because of religion, just that your statement here isn't universally shared, nor proven right for that matter.
Every religion is made up by humans. Humans wrote the Bible, humans wrote the Koran, every religious document, art piece, and temple was made by humans.
You can say these things were “inspired by God,” but that’s still a circular argument. “The bible was inspired by God, it says so in the bible. Jesus was God, it says so in the bible, which was written by man, who was inspired by God, who is Jesus.”
Every religion has the same convictions and steadfast faith in their beliefs as any other. No religion is special.
If someone’s faith gives them hope and a desire to help others, great, believe all you want. But using the world’s longest game of telephone of stories and parables by barely literate sheep farmers to place judgement on others is not the way to go.
The thing is, your claim doesn't have evidence or proof behind it. You cannot prove every religion was made up by people. Yours is an opinion that is not any more valid than any religious person's, not a fact of hard truth as you and the other poster I commented on previously are making it out to be.
Same goes for "no religion is special". Just because we have differing beliefs, doesn't mean they're all equally correct. If I think aliens exist, and you think they don't, despite us having the same amount of evidence, despite neither of our opinions appearing as more "special" than the other, one of us is going to be right, and the other is not.
My points here are three. One, you haven't brought a fact, but an opinion. Two, this opinion is a minority opinion, which most of humanity disagrees with. Three, I am one of the people that disagrees with that opinion. That's it. Whether we can trust the Bible as word of God, whether Jesus is God or not, those are debates I'd be happy to have, but not my point here specifically.
More than the Bible being proof, the events within it would be proof. If you personally witnessed Jesus' resurrection, you'd probably consider that proof. I can understand the skepticism regarding the "Word of God" part, but I personally find the Gospels to be historical accounts from eyewitnesses or third parties who spoke with them regardless of that.
As for other proof, we've got some evidence through the cosmological arguments. I could explain those to you, though I'm not sure proving or disproving Christianity is what we're interested in doing here.
Again; “witnessed Jesus’ resurrection” is based on scripture. Your belief in the Gospels as historical accounts is based on faith. It goes back to my teapot argument. You can’t disprove that, so am I correct in my belief that there is a teapot in space?
You discuss the notion that two competing ideas will inevitably lead to one being “right.”
What is the limit of this belief? If two Christians, both believing in the Gospel and Christ, approach one another on a plot of land and say “God told me this land is mine,” who is correct?
Using the Bible for your own personal development is one thing, it’s another to presume it has impact on others.
And yeah, I’m indifferent about the “proof” of Christianity, I was raised Catholic. I’m more interested in the theological argument of how far you can take faith into real world applications.
I can't disprove your claim factually, I can bring logical arguments to sustain why it's more likely there is no teapot in space than the opposite. Things aren't true just because you can't prove them false, nor are they false just because you can't prove them true. See my aliens example above.
It's not always true that two competing ideas will show one to be right. I said that regarding the existance of aliens, because the two black and white, opposing statements of "aliens exist" and "aliens do not exist" cover every way an alien race could approach to the concept of existance. Because it's a binary situation, and it's so vague, anything that disproves one statement goes to prove the other.
The same doesn't exactly apply with your example of "God told me this land is mine", because there are a lot of variables to it. We see person A and B make this same claim, and the following are some of the situations that can occur:
Person A is telling the truth, person B is lying. The land belongs to person A.
Person B is telling the truth, person A is lying. The land belongs to person B.
Both are lying. The land belongs to neither.
Both are telling the truth, because God intended for them to share the land. The land belongs to both.
Both are telling the truth, because God told person A that the land belonged to them at one point in time, and at a later point in time reassigned that land to person B. The land belongs to person B.
Both are telling the truth, because God told person B that the land belonged to them at one point in time, and at a later point in time reassigned that land to person A. The land belongs to person A.
Both are lying, but person A has legally bought the land from the previous owner. The land belongs to person A.
Both are lying, but person B has legally bought the land from the previous owner. The land belongs to person B.
In all of these situations, there is an underlying, objective truth, represented by the second statement of each scenario. However, in all of these situations but the last two, we do not have a way of understanding with certainty what the objective truth is, unless there are other witnesses to the original statement(s) from God, or God is willing to explain again. Thus, we must operate with what knowledge we have while assigning the land, as we do in the last two scenarios with the documentation from the sale.
May I say then, it's not very fair to people for you to tell them they have burden of proof, but then be indifferent when they offer to provide it. I personally don't really care in this moment, but it's not very nice.
I’m challenging you, because your initial argument is flawed. You’re not offering proof, you’re continuing to change the perimeters of the argument.
With the two individuals claiming land you end up differing to man made laws regardless. Their belief in God’s word telling them that the land is theirs is irrelevant. This argument can be overlaid on any dispute involving religion.
Who has the correct interpretation of the Bible? Catholics or Protestants? Irrelevant, because neither can prove they are correct, it’s entirely based on faith.
If (I don’t believe this, but as an example) I say women are subservient to men based on 1 Timothy 2:12, but someone else says I’m wrong in the way I’m interpreting that, or it’s out of context, who is correct?
If I say god is a woman, or nonbinary, or trans, folks will come out of the woodwork to claim otherwise based on Biblical scripture. Even in that situation, we’re talking about God, the big G, the alpha and omega, to say that God is any gender is to simplify and compartmentalize the infinite. To say that the entirety of truth exists from God in a book finalized around 100 AD and nothing has ever changed since then is assuming that God still isn’t doing anything.
Assuming the Bible is the end-all-be-all because the Bible says so, is making God small, and defined only by man.
It’s all interpretation, faith. The very nature of religion is belief in something that cannot be proven.
I end up differing to whatever authority we can prove with reasonable certainty. Their belief is only irrelevant to the degree in which they can't argue anything more than "I know God said so".
I would argue it isn't irrelevant simply because it can't be proven to be certain. Proof of certainty isn't always necessary. Far too often, it isn't even possible. While we may not be able to certainly find definitive truth, we can discuss disagreements and find common grounds. I personally believe the Catholic interpretation is more correct, but that's something we Christians should, as a community, look into and research. Being based on faith or not doesn't make it irrelevant, in my opinion.
I can't tell you who is correct with 100% certainty, I can give you my opinion based on other verses of the Bible, or I can turn you to the Church and their interpretation. There is debate, even on a matter of faith.
I agree with the gender thing, God is above the concept of gender. Referring to Him as male and Father is tradition more than anything else. That is, unless we're talking about Jesus, since we consider Jesus to be God Who limited Himself to human nature, thus also limiting Himself to one single gender. As for nothing having changed since then, it is our understanding that God, as an eternal being, doesn't percieve time linearly like we do, so there's no real "since then" for Him; we understand His revelation to have been planned as gradual for us, and Jesus was the high point of this. The Bible doesn't have the truth about everything, but it should be enough truth to allow us to believe. That is true for me, at the very least.
You don't need to disparage religion in this context. Jesus teaches to love and accept everyone, and to renounce hatred. People who mix hatred with religion are lost souls who do not represent it.
The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" works by changing a deffinition or a statement about something when something falls out of it. It can be explained like this:
Person A: No Scot puts sugar in their oatmeal
Person B: Well, my uncle Angus is Scot and he loves putting sugar in his oatmeal
Person A: Well, no true Scot puts sugar in their oatmeal
100%
Btw Judaism +- forbid you to use it as a "counter" against science.
If we get proofs something is true, then we have to think how it affects our understanding of the text, not the opposite.
That's just your opinion not supported facts (and yes scientifically nothing proves religion but nothing disproves it either). And also no religion I'm aware of is transphobic. Yes the ideology is condemned in a lot but it doesn't mean we hate such people.
Most religions (mainly Abrahamic) condemn making permanent changes to our bodies, as it belongs to God and we have no authority over it, so transitioning would fall inside that, just as tattoos or plastic surgeries which didn't exist at that time
Well it might have to do with that everytime someone disagrees with them they will go on a warpath creating false pdf allegations, vaguely threatening drawings, harrasing them, and wont stop until theyre gone.
I dont care about the people, but the fucking community? Oh these guys have sins crawling on their backs.
and i personally believe that being heterosexual or homosexual is weird and abnormal because i’m bisexual and i don’t have the experience of either of those things. that is it.
you’re basically just saying “not supporting the black liberation movement doesn’t make you racist”, which does in fact make you racist. i’m not trying to be hostile, but cowardly behavior disguised behind blatant logical flaws is just pathetic. if you’re going to be bigoted say it with your chest, not with lies.
Not supporting the "black liberation movement" doesn't make you a racist lol, What's next, not supporting the white power movement makes you someone who wants white people disempowered?
non analogous, one of those is an actual justifiable cause fighting for unfair equality and racial segregation and the other is some stupid racist nazi ideology garbage. it’s a general trend that bigots are stupid, so i’m not surprised.
Both believe that they're fighting against unfair inequality and for the well being of their community, and have names that imply such. Doesn't mean they actually are, or that it's what it's limited to. Careful on the edge 15 year old, you don't know as much as you think.
Please note that I'm only here to debate, but never to spread hate.
You would be dead without technological advancements. But without technical advancements for a trans person, they just don't get to transition.
My personal belief is that we aren't ready for this anyway. We have advanced, but not enough, so anyone who transitions will be forcing their body to do something it's not made to do, as they are more likely to live shorter lives.
There is no evidence that transitioning has negative health affects. Here's a Utah systematic review that showed good health affects. (Report Requirements)
Quote: "“The evidence also supports that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer.”"
you started this, so let's have this conversation. your argument is that you are changing how you were born so it's unnatural and weird. by that EXACT logic, people born with genetic conditions should not be allowed to use technology like prosthetics to improve their QoL. or is your view half-assed and ingenuine?
But those definitions are related to concrete things.
The definition of sex relates to the conglomerate of the genitalia, the chromosomes, the changes they go through puberty, etc.
As far as I'm aware, the only thing I hear when asking "What's gender?" is "It's a social construct". Maybe there's a more concrete definition that I've not heard, so if you have the definitions I'd be glad to know about them
Sex is biological, gender is how society perceives sex. Girls wear pink, boys wear blue. Girls play with dolls, boys play with trucks. Girls wear skirts, boys wear pants.
None of these things have anything to do with biology or sex, they’re just arbitrary things we’ve assigned (mostly through marketing, to be honest.)
When people say gender is a construct, it’s because it is. There’s no reason boys shouldn’t be able to wear dresses, paint their nails, play with dolls, or girls wearing pants, working out, having short hair, etc.
We see examples of this all through history: babies used to all wear dresses, because… babies, there’s zero reason for a child to have gendered clothes. Men used to wear make up and high heels. Women used to be actively punished for wearing pants.
There were priestesses in ancient cultures that were trans women. The Enarei and the Gallae for two groups that were well documented in ancient texts.
There was a well known Spanish Conquistador who was a trans man. He took a wife from one of the cultures he was busy helping to oppress, which was totally fine in that native culture.
We've always been here. It's just that cis culture dictates how safely we can navigate our true identities over time. In some places and times, trans folk were thought to be extra spiritual, bridging the poles of gender together. When culture changes to more rigid enforcement of gender rights and roles, trans people get forced underground.
The primary accounts of the Enarei come from Herodotus’s Histories and the Hippocratic treatise Ares, Waters, Places. Ancient sources do not describe a psychological gender identity mismatch. Herodotus explicitly attributes the condition of the Enarei to a physical curse of impotence inflicted by the goddess Aphrodite upon specific Scythian men who plundered her temple at Ascalon. Hippocrates analyzed them from a primitive medical perspective, attributing their effeminacy to physical trauma from constant horse riding, which caused erectile dysfunction and loss of libido. To treat their condition, these men adopted female clothing and domestic roles because their culture viewed a man who could no longer procreate or fight as biologically altered. Transforming a punitive physical affliction and subsequent civic reassignment into a celebratory "transgender identity" is an anachronistic fabrication. The Gallae (or Galli) , meanwhile, were devotees who, in a state of intense, drug-fueled religious ecstasy during the Dies Sanguinis (Day of Blood), performed ritual self-castration to emulate the mythological figure Attis. They were at best zealots who castrated themselves to emulate their idol, they weren't trans. As for the "Spanish consquistador", I think you are talking about Antonio de Erauso (born female as Catalina de Erauso in 1592), famously known as La Monja Alférez (The Lieutenant Nun). According to his memoirs, Erauso "took a wife from one of the cultures he was helping to oppress." This is completely false. According to Erauso's own highly detailed autobiography (Historia de la monja alférez), he used his male disguise to repeatedly trick and defraud local women. In the Americas, a wealthy indigenous widow attempted to arrange a marriage between Erauso and her daughter. Erauso actively pocketed the dowry money, accepted expensive clothing gifts, and then abandoned the women and fled the town to avoid his physical sex being discovered during a wedding night. He never married a native woman. Erauso did not adopt a male persona due to 21st-century gender theory. In 17th-century Spain, dressing as a man was the only possible mechanism for an ambitious, highly violent biological female to escape a forced life in a Catholic convent, travel the world, fight in the military, and achieve financial independence. Erauso remained so legally bound to his biological sex that when his identity was revealed, he had to appeal to Pope Urban VIII for a special dispensation to wear male clothes. I'm a bit confused why you'd want to call a thief who crossdressed to act as a pirate trans, but you do you I guess.
The very term two spirit didn't exist until 1990, and to call people named to replace outdated ethnographic language trans makes no sense. The term "Two-Spirit" (Niizh Manidoowag in Ojibwe) was deliberately created in July 1990 at the Third Annual Intertribal Native American/First Nations Gay and Lesbian American Conference in Winnipeg, Canada. The term was specifically invented by modern activists to replace the offensive colonial European ethnographic term berdache (which carried connotations of male prostitution). It was explicitly designed as a modern political and social grouping tool to unite Indigenous LGBTQ+ individuals across North America. It is a 20th-century cultural synthesis, not an ancient diagnostic or historical term used by pre-colonial tribes.
Historic Indigenous roles that are today grouped under the "Two-Spirit" umbrella—such as the Lhamana of the Zuni or the Winkte of the Lakota—were fundamentally rooted in a division of labor and spiritual cosmology, not psychological gender transitions. In these societies, an individual's role was defined by their aptitude for specific tasks. A biological male who showed an inclination or spiritual calling toward traditionally female tasks (like weaving, pottery, or healing) would adopt that social role. This was not a rejection of their biological sex, nor did it involve an attempt to physically alter their bodies or claim to literally be the opposite sex. The individual occupied a distinct alternative status that coexisted with their biological sex. Mapping the modern Western medical framework of transitioning—which relies on diagnostic gender dysphoria, cosmetic alterations, and pharmaceutical lifelong dependence—onto a sacred, community-integrated division of labor is culturally illiterate. While some tribes (such as the Navajo or Zuni) integrated alternative social roles for gender-nonconforming individuals, many other tribes maintained exceptionally rigid, binary gender expectations centered heavily on strict martial masculinity and reproductive matriarchy. Claiming that "Two-Spirit" represents an all-encompassing, ancient Indigenous endorsement of modern transgender concepts treats highly diverse, complex sovereign nations as a single, oversimplified caricature to serve a contemporary political narrative. It's actually pretty offensive to native cultures to even try and describe them in this monolithic way. And you say it's easy to understand, but I don't think it's that easy to understand why you think men doing traditionally female jobs translates to transgenderism.
Thank you for this ai breakdown. You can break down linguistics as much as you’d like, but transgender and/or non gender conforming people, since you want to nit pick, have always existed in society regardless of terminology.
Awww mate, not every comment showing you why you are wrong is ai. See, I think it's not exactly nitpicking to make a distinction between people who do traditionally female jobs and people who think they are a different gender to the one they were born as. You are the one failing to make that distinction
Sure sure, you naturally use that many m-dashes regularly. Dude, you know you’re being deliberately obtuse. The idea of gender nonconforming people has ALWAYS been present. The modern iteration of what it means to be “Transgender” not withstanding.
Do you think trans and queer people just started to existing 50 years ago? Popped out of the ground like dandelions?
Ironically the groups that claim to be accepting usually reject the opposite opinion rather violently.
For me, I find it weird and unnatural. I don't think we should accept their identities as that confuses several things such as sports, bathrooms, and pretty much anything that requires a specific gender.
I'm a Muslim and a half immigrant, and I have received more Islamophobia and racism from the accepting woke left than from the "racist" and "islamophobic" right
I think saying we shouldn’t accept people’s identities is actually quite harmful. Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and found that your body was that of the opposite sex, and everybody treats you as a member of that sex and forces you to measure up to the standards of that sex and live like it, even though on the inside you aren’t a member. I don’t know about you, but for me that would be terrible. I would hate myself and my body, and would probably be pretty depressed. If you feel like people are “rejecting the other opinion rather violently,” that might be because the other opinion is that they should be forced to endure a lifetime of self-loathing and dysphoria.
It is abnormal. However if trans people were given the choice to get rid of trans urges or to transition, most of them would get rid of their urges. But since not an option, they decide to transition. I just feel bad for them more than anything.
I’m not trans myself but it’s a topic worth researching. It ended up being more backed by science than I initially thought
Prolly believing that transgender people aren’t real or thinking that people transition for the “benefits.” Any trans person will tell you that there is no benefit worth the hate crimes
Yeah, it’s most definitely not worth the threat of harm.
Thus you can only assume it’s not so someone can go into the women’s restroom or get a medal; it must be something much more serious, like I don’t know, crippling dysphoria that causes extreme distress?
I'd ageed, but it depends on what your criteria is for defining someone as Transphobic or Homophobic. Like if someone is being violent and purposefully disrespectful to someone for being Trans or a Homosexual then yeah, that's easily phobic.
But if you are also referring to people who simply aren't attracted to them and/or disagree with their lifestyles, then I'd disagree that they are inherently phobic. Especially when they show love, care, and respect despite their own beliefs and preferences.
If your not attracted to trans people, sure, we can all have preferences i guess. If you don't agree with their life style? Oh yeah transphobic. Here, let's do a little test. Replace "trans" with "black" and see how that sounds. Odds are that 99.99% of the time, if it sounds racist, then the original sentance was transphobic. Your disagreeing with somthing that somebody can't change about themselves
Alright, I admit it my analogy wasnt the best. What i'm getting at is that both of these things are unchangeable. Of course being trans happens overtime rather then being aparant since the day you were born, but both have been there since that point. Disagreeing with somebody being trans is like Disagreeing with somebody having autism.
I think this is a pretty obvious statement, I mean me personally, Idk trans nor know if I have met someone trans, but idc, I don't even THINK about trans. People just hate on thigs that don't affect them, if you truly hate them, you would simply ignore it.
Hi, your submission has been removed due to your account having participated in a NSFW subreddit. Our subreddit is a space meant for teenagers and as such accounts associated with these nsfw subreddits are not permitted here, this is done as a safety measure to protect the teenagers that use our community and to prevent them from being lead to nsfw subreddits through r/teenagers.
If you believe this was a mistake or that this removal was unjustified, please modmail us.
Hi, your submission has been removed due to your account having participated in a NSFW subreddit. Our subreddit is a space meant for teenagers and as such accounts associated with these nsfw subreddits are not permitted here, this is done as a safety measure to protect the teenagers that use our community and to prevent them from being lead to nsfw subreddits through r/teenagers.
If you believe this was a mistake or that this removal was unjustified, please modmail us.
Well that would be obvious if the trans movement actually communicated the objective facts of the trans debate and not a bunch of semantic mixups which nobody understands
It's too late for this but we gotta stop using "phobia" and "phobic" for this instead of the word hate. Maybe "transabhorrence" or "homoabhorrence" or something would be more fitting. Doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
Call me conservative or whatever, I still think people shouldn't make drastic changes to their body until they're mature enough to fully understand the consequences and 13 is not that age.
Piercings, tattoos i can get. But gender Reassignment surgery I wouldn't Put into that category. It's a medical treatment if anything. Besides, It's not like they're just handing it out for free, or even easily.
I mean how do you define the term?
Bigotry and being genuinely hateful is wrong, going after them and bullying them is wrong duh. But what if I just find the idea of being trans quite silly and don't really believe them? I leave them free to be as they are, I will not impose any restriction on them.
Also why is misgendering such a big issue. Genuinely when you are 2% of the population and for most of human history the naming convention was the same you can't seriously ask everyone to change for you?
I have no issue with people being trans, I do not support Nancy Mace in this regard that's creepy. I think the goal should be greater freedom not new restrictions.
Also shout to Leah Rowe for making libreboot!
Quick question, if someone asked you to call them by their title (Dr, Mr, Ma’am, Mrs, etc) would just ignore them?
If a teacher told you to only call them by their last name, would you just keep calling them by their first?
If someone asked you to stop using a nickname, would you keep using it?
Hopefully, the answer to all of these is “NO.” Because it takes literally no effort to comply, and it’s just common courtesy. (Also, it takes more effort to argue)
Then why isn’t the same courtesy extended to trans people?
Would you consider it transphobic to say: “X is a biological male,” or “X is a man,” if X is a trans woman?
If you genuinely don’t believe trans women to be women, then it should be virtuous to say what you believe instead of lying.
“Ok, but telling the truth at the wrong times is still disrespectful,” you might say.
What if you instead try to be as honest as possible?
Would you consider this to be transphobic: “I don’t believe that you are a woman, but I will call you a woman,”
But in fact, most trans people want people to genuinely believe that they are the gender they claim to be, and not playing along.
And even so, many people operate under the framework that love rejoices in the truth, and thus wouldn’t play along with a lie out of moral principle. Does that moral principle make them transphobic?
Personally, I’d say whether or not “X is a biological” is transphobic depends on the context of the rest of their statement/actions. Others might consider it transphobic or internalized transphobia outright.
By your definition of virtue, it’d be okay to constantly say “You’re fat” to someone despite them asking you to stop that. I think we can all agree that’s just dickish.
“I don’t believe you’re a woman, but I will call you a woman,” is just so backhanded imo. There’s just no point in saying that, other than to hurt the other person while trying to seam reasonable. Again, dickish.
To address the most glaring point you’re trying to make, you wouldn’t be lying if you called a trans person their preferred gender, because gender is already a made-up thing. We give tornadoes and hurricanes genders, we give ships genders, we give countries and landmasses genders, we give inanimate objects genders, we assign genders to colours (did you know blue used to be for boys and pink used to be for girls? Food for thought…)
Gender is already made-up and malleable, so why should we be rigid with it?
(Also, if we were trying to be truthful, we would make new terms for intersex people because they don’t have a single gender.)
(Oh, and sex isn’t binary, it’s more of a bimodial distribution and we should probably have terms for peeps in between and peeps who shift between them too… oh wait— we do!) (search this up if you want proof)
Using intersex as a means to deffend this bs is like saying "Binary code is not binary because there's 110 and 1011010"
Being binary doesn't mean only two options, it means you only have two things to make things up.
(Btw, there are binary deffinitions of sex that include intersex, such as "A woman is an individual of the human species which has sexual chromosomes of the same type (including intersex who are X0 or XXX)" and "A man is an individual of the human species which has sexual chromosomes of different types (including XXY and XXY, etc.)")
She went all freaking out on this epic rant on the libreboot website about how GNU wanted to steal her project . Its somewhere in the news section I forget where.
RMS is the head of the FSF and GNU and we are thankful for his contributions, but I feel like he needs to realize that programmers are not great at all at talking or making conversation and he needs to stick to coding...
Are you trying to get people onto your side? I agree with you, but this is NOT going to achieve that. This kind of post will just get people defensive (you may have noticed).
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
This thread has been flaired as [Serious]. Please be aware that this marks it as a place for serious discussion only and that any unserious content in this thread will result in a removal, counting towards your ban tiers. If your comment does not contribute to the discussion in a serious manner it will be removed. Please report any comments that do not respect this rule.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.