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

157

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

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Gender is a load bearing brainworm for capitalist society. Capitalists need stratification, having a gradient of various degrees of precariousness for workers to experience that would push them into accepting a worse deal for selling their labor. Gender is clearly one of the primary ways to achieve this: an absolutely incredible amount of domestic labor is performed without compensation by women every day, and society would fall apart if it wasn't. The rigid structure of the patriarchy is a key feature of this system, which means that trans people represent a clear break in that logic; if AFAB individuals can just choose not to be subjected to gender-based exploitation, it starts to rip the whole thing apart. Equally, transfeminine people represent another break in the opposite direction. The patriarchy is more or less incompatible with the existence of trans people, at least without significantly transforming itself.

[–] ooli2@lemm.ee 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

very interesting take. Thanks

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 2 points 13 hours ago

I wanna add that the way I formulated it is incomplete, or at least too partial to the functional perspective that someone who wishes to preserve the status quo would have. Obviously trans people don't just "choose" their gender, it's much more complicated than that. But I think it's worth looking at things from this lens to understand why the billionaires in particular are recalcitrant about gender.