[RD] Trans Erasure

[Cloud_Strife]

Nope.

Trans people are called "selfish" for transitioning, asked to exclude themselves on the basis of how cis people feel about us, expected to be the butt of a joke and treated like exotic sexual conquests for chasers, nevermind that in this very thread trans people are being told that our very presence amongst women is akin to harm

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

No one is being jailed or placed in camps for being trans in the UK, can't say I know about the US.

There is a lot of noise right now in Scotland about where/how to house criminals who are trans, for their safety and others.

 

[Gorbles]

No one is being jailed or placed in camps for being trans in the UK, can't say I know about the US.

Igloo has made a nice thread on how difficult it is for trans people in the UK (even compared to the US) to get treatment, which is the same as denying them things by law - the end result is the same. The solutions may be different, of course, but that's what the thread's for. I just wanted to highlight that the UK has no shortage of its own problems on the subject.

There is a lot of noise right now in Scotland about where/how to house criminals who are trans, for their safety and others.

A subject, it must be noted, has not been raised for criminals of the same crime committed but who do not happen to be trans.

(and this is without raising once again the issue of Westminster blocking Scotland's passed reformations to the GRA despite Scotland allegedly having devolved control of such)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Trans people are called "selfish" for transitioning, asked to exclude themselves on the basis of how cis people feel about us, expected to be the butt of a joke and treated like exotic sexual conquests for chasers, nevermind that in this very thread trans people are being told that our very presence amongst women is akin to harm

The claim was made that the term was changed because: "Once again here we are centering cis feelings over trans experiences because thinking about what is literally happening to us right now makes you even the slightest bit uncomfortable."

I disagree that's the motivator for changing the term. That's all.

edit: you know what, this is the second time, I notice that my participation is frowned upon. I'll excuse myself and won't disrupt the discussion any longer.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: With the previous title, people were sidetracking the thread to 'debate' the definition of genocide, rather than actually discussing the very real problems facing trans people in the US and elsewhere. Cloud said she was willing to use erasure, so I changed the thread name. Direct any further comments on the thread title to me (or another member of staff) in private, as the rules on PDMA clearly state.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

This was just heard at a hearing for a slew of anti-trans bills in ND (incl. full legalization of conversion therapy read: child torture):

View attachment 651847

Arkansas is currently debating a bill that would make it illegal to “sing, dance, or perform while performing a gender identity other than that assigned at birth” for “purient interest,” which, interpreted liberally, could be, say, a trans woman wearing a crop top or blush or a skirt or literally anything in public. They think we do this as a fetish, so by definition any public presence on our part becomes a performance for “purient interest”.

WV is debating a bill to make any kind of “transgender exposure” in the presence of minors illegal.

MS is debating a bill to make it a felony with a minimum 5-year prison sentence to CONSENT to HRT under the age of 21.

Oklahoma is debating a bill to make it illegal to prescribe or receive hormones under-26.

“Think of the children” was the wedge. The ultimate goal is to bring back the obscenity laws and the medical gatekeepers and make it illegal again simply to be visibly trans in public

If Jesus Christ were here in 2023, he would be ashamed at the laws against LGBT+ people.

 

[gay_Aleks]

We can see the intellectual curiosity on CFC-OT regarding the issues that transgender people face on the fact that, apart from people who clearly just want us to be gone (e.g NobleZarkon*), this thread has been:

Fifty percent bloviating about the right definition of 'genocide' (which a poster has noted can be used as a way of deflection. Indeed: by cis people alone, who have not even remotely engaged with the issue.) with an idiotic focus on definitions and etymology. When did this forum become so linguistically inclined?
Fifty percent catering to the feelings of those self-same cis people, who faced with the slightest criticisms that, perhaps, there are certain things they cannot understand and that it would not hurt to be so very presumptuous. The slightest empathy seems to brush against the fact that we do not sweet-talk into your delicate ears.

It is a symptom of the disease that this 'noble' subforum is suffering from; the civility has hung around like a fungus in the minds of long-time veteran posters, rendering them tragically unable to discern the truth of what is going on as propriety is of greater importance than anything else. It would be merely pathetic if it wasn't about such a life and death issue.

*(This would be considered namecalling, but I would insist it is not; on account of the fact that this is a R.D thread, it would mean I am forced to accept that NobleZarkon believes in good faith that, at the very least, all trans people in Scotland ought to be hidden away from the good public's eyes, per what he has posted here in this thread and elsewhere. Listen to the horse's mouth, folks.)

 

[NinjaCow64]

Yeah its shameful

 

[Cloud_Strife]

People on this forum seem to think just because they phrase their disagreement with who we are in a "polite way" that they're not going to get pushback.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

When did this forum become so linguistically inclined?

At least since 2005.

Fifty percent bloviating about the right definition of 'genocide'
Fifty percent catering to the feelings of those self-same cis people

So that's 100% of the content in this thread?

 

[Samson]

So that's 100% of the content in this thread?

I reckon there is quite a bit of overlap between set A and set B there.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Acceptable forms of anti trans rhetoric allowed on this forum range from:

Insinuating that we are deluded and that we're not who we say we are.

Associating us with cross dressers, prostitutes and the abusers of children.

Making gross caricatures of us designed to provoke disgust and hostility towards the entire community

Portraying trans femmes as being an intrinsic threat to cis women and girls
Am i missing anything?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I reckon there is quite a bit of overlap between set A and set B there.

This thread had been ... indicates different.

 

[NovaKart]

That's insane. I get that government chambers need some kind of dress code, but forbidding women to wear dress pants or pantsuits... (I don't have a problem with prohibiting sleeveless garb in government/business settings)

Of course the men are required to wear 3-piece suits, with appropriate ties, cufflinks, and pocket watches, even in the hottest days of the sitting?

No? Oh, what a non-surprise.

Looked this up and men are required to wear a coat, tie, dress pants and dress shoes. No cuff links or pocket watches though. I’ve never understood the difference between different pieces of suit.