[RD] LGBTQ news

Kyriakos said:
I think that some posters are very unfair to TF. I was rather surprized - but not really - by the laughable claim that he is into worshiping the crown, but that is just peripheral; I think the main issue was that he tried to present complications with how some debates become convoluted and vague if there is no interest in translating ts-specific needs to the overall situation in society.
Sometimes one can "forget" that regardless of how serious their problem is to them, most other people will still see their personal problems as taking precedence; maybe because they actually live with them, while anything else is tied to another person and whether that other person is ts or not may not matter in the first place.

PS (not about TF, but sentiments regarding the forum) : I think it is pretty safe to say that CFC OT, if anything, is more pro-ts than the average forum which consists of random people into some field (in this case tied by a computer game). There is ample evidence for that, not least of which is that virtually no poster ever expressed being anti-ts. The arguments are always with posters who already are pro-ts, and their "shortcoming" was that they weren't pro-ts in a specific way some wanted.
But it is clearly unrealistic to think that, outside an echo chamber, you will (or that you must) not listen to any such differences on minutiae (relatively speaking). Again, while some may not see them as minutiae, you should recall that each person has their own issues and is unique, so having core acceptance by virtually everyone here is no small feat, and does mean the forum as a whole can only be regarded as pro-ts.
Click to expand...

Hey man, I know people have told you TS is considered an offensive term. Use trans or transgender.

page 39 of the LGBTQ thread and it’s weird people rationalizing queer marginalization and doggedly using terms they know damn well they shouldn’t. I guess that’s why this thread is just trolls “playing” devil’s advocate and queer people who have largely given up engaging with it entirely, except for a small, well-meaning but Sisyphean detachment who are apparently into self-punishment.

on that note, unsubscribing lol
 
Ajidica said:
What a world we live in where a journalist who writes this is called anti-trans:
Click to expand...
I gave you context on the author. I even gave a link to a (Wikipedia) overview of the controversy around the article. I can't make you agree with me, but I hope you will take what I'm saying with an open mind.

Have some more links on him specifically:

https://www.glaad.org/gap/jesse-singal (he rebutted some past version of this page, but it looks like it has since been updated)
https://www.emilygorcenski.com/post/jesse-singal-got-more-wrong-than-he-thinks/
https://slate.com/human-interest/20...ories-value-cis-anxiety-over-trans-lives.html
Ajidica said:
Does that now mean a trans psychiatrist is saying anti-trans things?
Click to expand...
I would argue that peoples' words can be used in a variety of different ways depending on the context, even if those words themselves can arguably be accurate. For example, would you trust Political Party A talking about Political Party B, claiming something that B said? I wouldn't. Even if the words are true, the framing is going to obviously benefit Party A.

This goes for Singal exclusively, and likely others too. The article is slanted to highlight risks and danger, to the point where it serves as an article that transphobes infamously use to support their own agenda. If that's a red flag, I don't know what is (nevermind Singal's own associations with such folk).
Ajidica said:
The article noted that there are those who were not well served by the trend toward emphasizing affirmation over diagnosis (to brutally summarize it) is was not helpful to some of the individuals interviewed in the article. The interests of those who were not well served by the transition process are just as important as those whose interests were helped.

EDIT: To add some context, in a lot of lefty news media stateside (ie Vox) frequently present transition as "if someone is exploring their gender identity and think they might be trans, the medical community should only affirm that they are trans". A number of psychologists/psychiatrists interviewed in the Atlantic article note that is not necessarily a healthy way to approach gender transition for a minor, and it is important to be supportive of the individual as they explore their understanding of their gender identity.
Click to expand...
So hopefully the links I've provided above (in particular the Slate link) should show why the Atlantic article is problematic. If you want to keep on relying on it, again, I can't make you not. But I really don't think it helps your arguments here. Hopefully the links I've provided read better than what I can manage here, it's been some time since he's been in the news, so to speak. The pieces should also help resolve your concern over the tension you've talked about in past posts. If you simply want to say that such a tension can theoretically exist, sure. But it isn't something that needs to be raised in every single discussion about trans rights, because it's mostly a distraction from the subject as a whole. It is not something that isn't known about, in the individual circumstances it may actually be a problem. It shouldn't be generalised to being a problem for trans people at large, in my opinion.
 
NinjaCow64 said:
Cool. Once again I ask - if you're not sure what someone means by "trans rights" then why don't you ask them instead engaging in semantic shell-games?
Click to expand...

I think if the general point is being made that the term is nebulous and means different things to different people, then the answer to this question should be apparent.
 
Manfred Belheim said:
I think if the general point is being made that the term is nebulous and means different things to different people, then the answer to this question should be apparent.
Click to expand...
Except the context was the fact gay / lesbian rights was apparently a settled argument (compared to trans rights) and the counterpoint was that it obviously wasn't. It still means different things to different people. That said, I'm not particularly interested in pursuing it given TF's post in the coming and going thread.

Don't worry, I'm sure next time you'll actually read the discussion instead of jumping on what you evidently saw as an opportunity to nitpick ;)
 
By the way, a polite reminder: since a lot of the discussion is focusing on trans people, there is still a thread in which you can, you know, ask trans people to your heart's desire (if you're acting in good faith anyhow...) about anything. Mostly.
 
Gorbles said:
Except the context was the fact gay / lesbian rights was apparently a settled argument (compared to trans rights) and the counterpoint was that it obviously wasn't. It still means different things to different people. That said, I'm not particularly interested in pursuing it given TF's post in the coming and going thread.

[snark redacted]
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't have any problem with arguing with the claim the gay/lesbian rights are a settled argument if there's disagreement there, but that doesn't alter what the clear and obviously claim about the term "trans rights" was - that it is ambiguous, nebulous and means different things to different people, and therefore that poses problems when discussing the issue. Again, you could argue against that description, but to just say "ask them what they mean" seems to be missing the point entirely.

You know, like if someone had made the claim that it was ambiguous what number the symbol "4" was used to represent, and different people meant different things by it, and this therefore caused problems for... I don't know... aircraft design. I think you would have to agree that "well if someone says 4, just ask them what they mean by it" isn't exactly addressing the issue raised.

Apologies for answering a direct question that nobody else answered. As usual, I should have checked with you first if I was allowed to post.
 
It can be bridged to "4"; while everyone means the fourth step in the natural number progression, it is not at all certain that everyone forms the basis for that notion in the same way (I doubt they do). In the case of more theoretical stuff, like x group's rights, there are just more obscure and not to be defined parameters which allow one person to mean something very clearly different from what another would mean.
It is like being outside the US and thinking that some law from the US constitution applies to you, since you are familiar with it from the movies. Your local variant may be very different, and obviously the latter is what has legal vale while the former is projection and wishful thinking.
And the bad thing about laws is that they have to be specific to a degree, otherwise everyone could interpret them differently; from this follows that a vague and transforming sense of right for group x, which is supposed to include everything anyone wants, can never be set in law.
 
Former leaders of the ‘ex-gay’ movement share painful experiences in ‘Pray Away’

In the new Netflix documentary ‘Pray Away’ repentant former leaders of the disbanded US group Exodus International – which promoted so-called ‘conversion therapy’ in order to change people’s sexual orientation or gender identity – share their painful experiences and give viewers rare insights into the so-called ‘ex-gay’ movement. It is eye-opening.

It includes interviews with four former Exodus leaders, who reflect on the deep wounds that ‘conversion therapy’ left in them and in others, and explain how they got involved in this kind of activism in the first place. All have renounced their past and are now living openly as bisexual or gay people.
​
I will repeat the point I made earlier, that US tax dollars are paying for this in Africa.

 
Manfred Belheim said:
Well I wouldn't have any problem with arguing with the claim the gay/lesbian rights are a settled argument if there's disagreement there, but that doesn't alter what the clear and obviously claim about the term "trans rights" was - that it is ambiguous, nebulous and means different things to different people, and therefore that poses problems when discussing the issue. Again, you could argue against that description, but to just say "ask them what they mean" seems to be missing the point entirely.

You know, like if someone had made the claim that it was ambiguous what number the symbol "4" was used to represent, and different people meant different things by it, and this therefore caused problems for... I don't know... aircraft design. I think you would have to agree that "well if someone says 4, just ask them what they mean by it" isn't exactly addressing the issue raised.

[snark redacted]
Click to expand...
Saying "[snark redacted]" when you came at the discussion with the rather pointed "the answer should be apparent" is funny, I've got to say :D Doubly so when you continue with snark of your own. But I'm happy to move on.

Regardless, you're not understanding the point in context. The argument was that trans rights are nebulously-defined in contrast to gay and lesbian rights, which are allegedly not (nebulously-defined). My argument (and the argument of others) is that gay and lesbian rights are nebulously-defined by the same standards people are applying to "trans rights" in this discussion. Ergo, the original point of contrast is incorrect.

The answer to "seems to be missing the point entirely" is provided by NinjaCow64 in the very same post you quoted. I'm not sure how you missed it, but just scroll down to the end of the post. Please note that the context was TF explicitly saying that "we do not know what they mean until we ask" ("they" being proponents of trans rights). In this context, "just ask" is an absolutely valid suggestion.
 
Gorbles said:
The answer to "seems to be missing the point entirely" is provided by NinjaCow64 in the very same post you quoted. I'm not sure how you missed it, but just scroll down to the end of the post. Please note that the context was TF explicitly saying that "we do not know what they mean until we ask" ("they" being proponents of trans rights). In this context, "just ask" is an absolutely valid suggestion.
Click to expand...

But ts people are not a hive mind (much like no other group is either), so asking a few won't really give you a definitive answer. Moreover, there is the issue of legality - although only where that applies. (For something to be written in law, it simply has to be mostly specific and not prone to wildly different interpretations. Some leeway is given, but not enough to cater to the different views).
 
But asking the person that you're actually talking with would allow the conversation to move forward. Theoretically, we can eventually form a Zeitgeist of what the definitions mean, with enough iterative versions of clear communication
 
El_Machinae said:
But asking the person that you're actually talking with would allow the conversation to move forward. Theoretically, we can eventually form a Zeitgeist of what the definitions mean, with enough iterative versions of clear communication
Click to expand...

You'd have (if we are being generous) f(xn), and pretend it is f(x). At some point the calculation will break down and you'll be accused for not sticking to the (supposed) agreement about f(x).
 
Kyriakos said:
You'd have (if we are being generous) f(xn), and pretend it is f(x). At some point the calculation will break down and you'll be accused for not sticking to the (supposed) agreement about f(x).
Click to expand...
"at some point" is a theoretical future point in said conversation. Personally, I'd rather we get there to see that happen. As it stands the conversation isn't moving forwards, so any presumptions of being "accused" of something are completely hypothetical.
 
Gorbles said:
"at some point" is a theoretical future point in said conversation. Personally, I'd rather we get there to see that happen. As it stands the conversation isn't moving forwards, so any presumptions of being "accused" of something are completely hypothetical.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take long at all, though. Consider that even questions with binary answer and clear prevalence of one of the two, won't always get you the same reply; "is living better than dying" etc.
Here you don't have any binary answer, and you don't have any other way of sustained acceptance apart from the forced picking of an arbitrary person as the representative of the group and the even more forced lack of arguments about that one person's view by others in the local subset of the group. Basically any clique, when small enough, may secure pseudo- homogeny for a short while, but what is the point of taking even that as being representative of a group?

Anyway, maybe one can ask just you, or just (say) EnglishEdward about the political situation in England. Or solve this by asking both - 2 out of 56.000.000 is good enough :)
 
Kyriakos said:
It doesn't take long at all, though. Consider that even questions with binary answer and clear prevalence of one of the two, won't always get you the same reply; "is living better than dying" etc.
Here you don't have any binary answer, and you don't have any other way of sustained acceptance apart from the forced picking of an arbitrary person as the representative of the group and the even more forced lack of arguments about that one person's view by others in the local subset of the group. Basically any clique, when small enough, may secure pseudo- homogeny for a short while, but what is the point of taking even that as being representative of a group?

Anyway, maybe one can ask just you, or just (say) EnglishEdward about the political situation in England. Or solve this by asking both - 2 out of 56.000.000 is good enough :)
Click to expand...
The problem was the communication between two (or a handful more) people. That was the entire context.

The discussion around "what about the rest of the population of the country" was a separate tangent, relating to comparisons to gay and lesbian rights.
 
Gorbles said:
The problem was the communication between two (or a handful more) people. That was the entire context.
Click to expand...

If you mean two posters, surely the undercurrent of the fall-out was exactly the more general phenomenon, where everyone's views play a role? (put in another way: where any individual's view isn't able to meaningfully be representative in society, irregardless of whether they are part of the group in question; the latter also because of the aforementioned difference in views among the group itself).

For a positive note: I think that if (when?) the tech/medicine allows safe and full transition to whatever one wishes to be, acceptance will rapidly increase. But I think that already acceptance for ts is a lot higher than could be anticipated, although of course it's not yet enough.
 
Last edited:
Possibly the different areas constitute a different set of risks and challenges for both social distancing and holding events.

Seen as the government has held up their hands and devolved it entirely to personal responsibility, you're going to see more and more lack of alignment along these kinds of things, and not just when it comes to LGBTQ events either.

Kyriakos said:
If you mean two posters, surely the undercurrent of the fall-out was exactly the more general phenomenon, where everyone's views play a role? (put in another way: where any individual's view isn't able to meaningfully be representative in society, irregardless of whether they are part of the group in question; the latter also because of the aforementioned difference in views among the group itself).
Click to expand...
Both were discussed over the course of the other thread and this one.

The summary of my argument (and possibly that of others, but I don't want to talk for them) is: "gay and lesbian rights" isn't a settled term just like "trans rights" aren't (technically speaking), and yet that hasn't stopped people achieving legal wins in the former demographic. This came out of an objection to "trans rights" as a useful phrase in discussion because it wasn't apparently settled "enough" to mean something. But if that's a problem that applies to more than just "trans rights", it isn't therefore enough of a problem to stop people using the phrase, either in a discussion, or in a legal context as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread
20 21 22
Replies
438
Views
15K
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
NinjaCow64
Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party
21 22 23
Replies
443
Views
12K
Lexicus
Lexicus
stfoskey12
Strategic Party Affiliation
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
Core Imposter
C
Birdjaguar
  • Locked
[RD] Hamas/Israeli War News One: Hostages and Invasion
133 134 135
Replies
3K
Views
95K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Plains-Cow
  • Locked
Off-Topic
Replies
4
Views
930
lymond
lymond
Top Bottom