Asklemmy

44821 readers

1345 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

158

Why the ultrarich come after trans people ? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) by ooli2@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

104 comments fedilink hide all child comments

elon musk, mark zuckerberg, J.K rowling! Are the names that come to mind.

3 from different background: a African immigrant benefiting from government spending, an American smart young engineer, and a female English successful writer.

They are no politicians, and cant be accuse of trying to gather some vote. Multi-billions amongst them.

I get they lean to the right to protect their cash, with less tax and regulation. I get they are racist because they fear some poor people will take their cash.

But why the hatred for trans people ? It's 1% of the population, they cant do anything, dont threaten anyone. There is no rational or psychological reason

*EDIT: I read all the comments. A lot of interesting explanation: smokescreen/scapegoat, maintaining the male/female power structure, new face of anti-gay , projection / self-hatred , just louder voice ...

I realize, may be, I didn't post a good question. May be it is less about the ultra-rich but more about why that rhetoric work on the general population (else it would not have taken hold as it does). For that I have a 2 cent theory: The raise of the cult of Nature we have since the global warming. The idea, that everything natural is better. The ugly version is only natural male and female are worthy*

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

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”.

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.

So you can’t go past the “transition” history for reasons that under all other circumstances you would decry as “misandry”,

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..

entitled to hands down secrecy, given that a random bigot can just shoot them down for being trans with zero consequences.

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..

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

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…

That's right

Ieven 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.

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 don’t know where you live, but this is not true in the UK

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.

while I agree with the thrust of what you are saying you have a writing style that puts words and assumptions in my mouth

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.

in a manner that comes across an unnecessarily combative. you also use exaggeration to make your point which is itself problematic…

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.