this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
157 points (92.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44821 readers
1325 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I consider your theorizing of "pre-transition history" being within the "rights of society" to "keep in touch with reality" as misleading and problematic.
In fact, these are the axioms of trans erasure I discuss in my other response. In the core of this reasoning is the idea that "men are inherently dangerous to women" therefore "women must know at all times the biological sex of any person they interact with".
So you can't go past the "transition" history for reasons that under all other circumstances you would decry as "misandry", but only apply this to trans women (victims themselves of cis violence in bathrooms and all other settings). Why? Because you register trans women in the semantics of sexual perversion. Then, the "right" to know anyone's medical history does not exist, on the contrary people have the right to privacy to medical interventions of any type.
Due to stigma and discrimination trans people are furthermore entitled to hands down secrecy, given that a random bigot can just shoot them down for being trans with zero consequences. But this is also hypothetical now. The amount of cis-passing is different for every trans people.
Some may pass for cis, most don't. Besides the existential crisis some people experience when they can't tell a person is trans, in practice stealth trans people are relatively rare, and there is not an iota of evidence that there is any societal harm from stealth cis-passing trans people. So there is no reason behind your purported "societal right to know", apart from cisgenderist entitlement.
Enforcing such right is not only infeasible, but it sufficiently and necessarily leads to banning public trans life, with no other explanation other than cis people's uneasiness. The civil rights movement has established that majoritarian uneasiness with minorities sharing their bathrooms is not enough to justify perpetuation of discriminatory segregation practices.
This is textbook transphobia.
I don't believe that, just to be clear. But I think that's the view of a lot of people, and that's what i was outlining. because that was relevant to OP's question.
I will assume you are not talking about me here as you have no idea of my point of view on the matter. I believe you are talking generically...
even if you are talking generically, i don't think your assumption here makes sense. many people feel free to discriminate between people on the basis of their biological sex. there are many contexts where (for example) men will accept they are treated differently but will not resort to calling this "misandry". at least in the settings i'm familiar with and amongst the people i've lived alongside here in London, UK. you may have very specific incidence in mind or may not be intending to speak universally, but you said "all other circumstances", which sounds pretty universal, so i'm just pointing out that's not correct..
I don't know where you live, but this is not true in the UK
while I agree with the thrust of what you are saying you have a writing style that puts words and assumptions in my mouth in a manner that comes across an unnecessarily combative. you also use exaggeration to make your point which is itself problematic..
That's right
I am talking about the notion that all men are potentially sexual predators. I am not discussing the truthfulness of the idea, or whether women are justified to be afraid of men in general (to an extend they are). But regarding this narrower notion, there is plenty of evidence online that men find the fear outrageous (Not all men etc). If they think trans women are (*) simply men (I disagree) then they are simply not consistent. This naturally leads to the next step, that their interpretation of transness in AMAB people is registered as a sexual perversion (*). It isn't. It is a personal identity thing, like being a (cis) woman also isn't inherently a sexual thing. To think the former is transphobia, to think the latter is misogyny. I am not saying, nor I care, about you subscribing to either, personally. We are both discussing the sociological popularity of these notions.
I am a nomad, but I was talking about the US, where this grim picture is true in some states, especially with black trans women whose murders the police is particularly inadequate to solve.
I was talking generically. That having been said, I wasn't sure about your personal take, since the lack of tone in this written medium can be very misleading.
I really tried to put arguments forth, and conscientiously not target you, while not giving you a free pass. I don't think I exaggerate, I just present in distilled form the things that people might mean but not necessarily say out loud.
As for being combative, I just try to be thorough and concise. When I said this is textbook transphobia I weren't attacking you. This is factual. If someone looks up a textbook on transphobia they will find the points I have asterisk-ed above. It would perhaps come down as less combative if I said "this is the dictionary definition of transphobia"? I don't know. Transphobia is an ugly thing and much like racism, there is no pleasant way to say it, but this is what the word means.
I think Peanuts is speaking from JKR's perspective, not justifying it
But I also skimmed bits of both of your comments. It's ironic really, because I'm equally verbose
The wording is such that lends legitimacy to these viewpoints. The breakdown is right there for anyone who want to build upon this discussion, but it would be naive to give the benefit of the doubt to just anyone, when ignorance and misinformation is ubiquitous, nay, institutionalized.