[RD] Trans Erasure

[Gorbles]

Not sure what you're referring here.

Can you give an example?

Happily.

Perhaps if you only want to discuss this with non-cis folks, you would be better off elsewhere?

Now, this is a mild example, but as the thread's already getting meta, let me try and break it down.

Not only did Aiken take Cloud's discussing of whether or not a poster was cis (bearing in mind that, again, I'm cis, take no offense at it, and feel like I can voice an at-times informative opinion without any trouble at all) as an indication that Cloud didn't want cis folks discussing the topic (which was a bit of a poor logical leap), but he then suggested that instead of leaving the thread to its own devices, that Cloud herself should go elsewhere. And this is very common when someone tends to get upset over something that's intensely personal to them - when it comes to something like trans rights.

If we replaced "Cloud" with a Ukrainian poster, and the subject with "the Russian invasion of Ukraine", surely you can see the parallel? We all know the parallels. We've seen the bad faith arguments there, the good faith-but-uninformed arguments, and everything inbetween. I repeatedly join with others in calling them out. We don't suggest the Ukrainian posters, even if they say something arguably over the top, go find somewhere else to discuss the invasion of their country.

So why should we suggest the same to Cloud here? What is driving the dissonance? I'd have to do a forum search to bring up more, and I'm sorry for focusing on Aiken like he's the Source Of All Evil, but it was just something convenient and to-hand. And again, it's mild in this specific context, but these things add up, and have several years of history between a bunch of forum posters that mostly all participate in the same threads. It's unfair to not expect people to react to something mild more than you might expect, and again, we don't hold other victims in other contexts to this rather high standard.

Which is also exactly why I'm defending the thread's necessity to Aiken. To try and show that these reactions are why these threads are useful. But it rarely goes anywhere because I keep seeing my fellow cis folks act as or more aggrieved sometimes at the mere mention of the word "cis" than the actual horrors being perpetrated. Hence, tone-policing.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Happily.

Now, this is a very mild example, but as the thread's already getting meta, let me try and break it down.

Not only did Aiken take Cloud's discussing of whether or not a poster was cis as an indication that Cloud didn't want cis folks discussing the topic, but he then suggested that instead of leaving the thread to its own devices, that Cloud herself should go elsewhere. And this is very common when someone tends to get upset over something that's intensely personal to them - when it comes to something like trans rights.

Would you consider my remark: "Surely you have to realize the irony here." in the same manner?

But since this is an open discussion forum ... cis people will participate. And to dismiss their participation with: Ah, you're cis, got it, is poor form at best.

And you worded this quite oddly:

Cloud's discussing of whether or not a poster was cis

That should read, Cloud's dismissal of a post because the poster was cis. That is discussing the poster, not the post. If the sentiment in question is mistaken, perhaps address the sentiment.

If we replaced "Cloud" with a Ukrainian poster, and the subject with "the Russian invasion of Ukraine", surely you can see the parallel?

I can.

We don't suggest the Ukrainian posters, even if they say something arguably over the top, go find somewhere else to discuss the invasion of their country.

We would if the response the Ukrainian poster gave was limited to: Ah, you're not Ukrainian, got it. That implies you have to be Ukrainian to participate, otherwise you don't understand/can't participate/you're argument can be dismissed on grounds of nationality

This is not about being rude.

 

[Gorbles]

But since this is an open discussion forum ... cis people will participate. And to dismiss their participation with: Ah, you're cis, got it, is poor form at best.

You're inferring a dismissal, and heck, you could be right. But you're not understanding it. Your continuation of the hypothetical with the Ukraine thread confirms this. You're centering it around "and therefore you should not participate", when it's actually a useful discussion marker whether someone is or not. It informs how Cloud (or anyone) perceives the argument.

Cis people will participate. Trans people will respond (particularly as one made the thread in the first place). Instead of being combative about a trans person's reaction to a cis person's commentary, actually put yourself in their position (which is what I tried, again, with the Ukraine example). You're making the Ukraine response too specific a parallel. The general principle is "poster saying something others think is a dismissal". And there's been plenty of that, and plenty of leeway given in the Ukraine thread explicitly (by messages we can all read) because of the nationalities of the posters involved.

Instead of trying to focus solely on why responses made by trans people can be so jaded, try and understand that there are valid reasons for them being jaded (without having to know them explicitly - either you trust someone's life experience or you don't *), and them having to repeat the same questions (when there's now a linked thread in the OP with a ton of backstory) from the same people who are still evaluating this from a cis perspective isn't that useful for a discussion. Some things just aren't. I'm sorry if this (somewhat ironically) causes any offense, but they just aren't. They may not be outright harmful, they may not be meant to be harmful at all, but that doesn't mean that they're therefore a constructive addition. This is in turn going to engender a response, and in this case that response leans heavily on the people involved being cis or trans.

Trans people that disagree may have a perspective the other hasn't shared. Cis people are incredibly unlikely to. Speaking from experience, too.

* for example, I've suffered grief. Intense, personal, familial grief. That is all anyone (certainly on an Internet forum) would need to know if we're discussing the subject, because the response from then on ideally should be sympathy. At least, in part. It shouldn't be "oh so you only want people who have suffered grief to participate" if I'm reacting to people constantly questioning why I'm feeling grief in the first place. That's not sympathy. That's using an emotional reaction to make a logical gotcha. That's not understanding.

 

[Snowygerry]

But framing the entire world as cis vs. trans is setting yourself up for failure imho. - after all we do not do that for Ukrainians and "non-Ukrainians",

particularly since "cis" in this context does not mean anything than "not-trans", or does it ?

On the contrary - it reminds me of framing the world outside Russia as "The West" and then complaining about "Russofobia".

Edit (with the added magnifier "genocide" in the thread title, a loaded word historically, that's even rarely used in the context of actual war)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're inferring a dismissal, and heck, you could be right. But you're not understanding it. Your continuation of the hypothetical with the Ukraine thread confirms this. You're centering it around "and therefore you should not participate", when it's actually a useful discussion marker whether someone is or not. It informs how Cloud (or anyone) perceives the argument.

A dismissal is not ever a useful discussion marker.

Cis people will participate. Trans people will respond (particularly as one made the thread in the first place). Instead of being combative about a trans person's reaction to a cis person's commentary, actually put yourself in their position

As you noticed, I was not combative but inquisitive. And opted a more productive way is to address the mistaken sentiment "If the sentiment in question is mistaken, perhaps address the sentiment."

Instead of trying to focus solely on why responses made by trans people can be so jaded

Whoa, whoa, I addressed one comment from one trans person. In no way I extended that to responses made by trans people.

try and understand that there are valid reasons for them being jaded

I realise there are valid reasons for people who are discriminated against to feel jaded.

I'm sorry if this (somewhat ironically) causes any offense

It doesn't. It causes curiosity and confusion.


edit: it also hijacks Cloud's thread, so I'll drop it and move on.

 

[Gorbles]

But framing the entire world as cis vs. trans is setting yourself up for failure imho. - after all we do not do that for Ukrainians and "non-Ukrainians",

particularly since "cis" in this context does not mean anything than "not-trans", or does it ?

On the contray - it reminds me of framing the entire world outside Russia as" The West" and then complaining about "Russofobia".

The framing is accurate because that's the separation between a marginalised minority and others who are not. Just like when we talk about racial justice, the marginalised minorities in that context are presented as separate, because they're treated separately. You can only disagree with this by disagreeing with the unequal treatment in the first place, which is an unfair assumption. I'm guessing the difference is because you don't think it helps, and I'm here to point out that sadly it doesn't matter, because said treatment exists in reality.

@Ziggy Stardust - another good example of hostility (intentional or otherwise) is to compare the plight of trans people (many examples of which have been given in-thread) to claims of "Russophobia" made by supporters-not-supporters an invading imperialistic power

--------------------------------

A dismissal is not ever a useful discussion marker.

I never claimed it was. But we disagree over how much we're reading it as a dismissal. My point was about the label of cis, no more, no less.

As you noticed, I was not combative but inquisitive.

I was talking about Aiken, and suggesting someone go out of the thread is most definitely "combative" regardless of how justified they think it is.

Whoa, whoa, I addressed one comment from one trans person. In no way I extended that to responses made by trans people.

We are discussing the general trend, with an example of Aiken (though there are others, and there continue to be others, and there will no doubt be others).

Because here's the thing. Somebody can react poorly (and to be honest, I think Cloud is reacting understandably given the history of general hostility that I've been talking about generally), it doesn't give others carte blanche to act in the same way. Especially not in an RD thread about why a group of people (that contains individuals who absolutely understandably have an emotional stake in the news being discussed) are struggling to demonstrate the reality of their plight. But again, we seem to be doing the academic exercise of presenting them as equal and balanced perspectives.

Like I said. Nobody would tell someone in the Ukraine thread to go elsewhere, regardless of what they've said. And I know this because some pretty heated things have been said, and nobody decided to make a tangent out of it. Here, multiple people have done. The good faith difference, at least in my eyes, is easy. It's because people are fixating on the "cis" thing and feeling targeted by proxy - in my opinion. On some level, it's because people are taking the negative sentiments personally, instead of trying to understand why that's the way it is.

We can do that for the victims of other countries who are invaded. I recognise it's a bit more of a jump to put it aside if you feel unfairly targeted, but it can and still should be done here as well. Otherwise some people will never move past "combative", and you might not ever move past "inquisitive". I'm past both. If I had to use a term, it'd be "acceptance". I don't consider myself better, it's just all part of a process.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

We would if the response the Ukrainian poster gave was limited to: Ah, you're not Ukrainian, got it. That implies you have to be Ukrainian to participate, otherwise you don't understand/can't participate/you're argument can be dismissed on grounds of nationality

This is not about being rude.

edit: crap, that's not dropping it. Bad Ziggy.

 

[Snowygerry]

The framing is accurate because that's the separation between a marginalised minority and others who are not. Just like when we talk about racial justice, the marginalised minorities in that context are presented as separate, because they're treated separately. You can only disagree with this by disagreeing with the unequal treatment in the first place, which is an unfair assumption. I'm guessing the difference is because you don't think it helps, and I'm here to point out that sadly it doesn't matter, because said treatment exists in reality. (...)

Not at all - it implies that all "trans" share a common experience and all "cis" share a common lack of understanding on the issue - which is evidently not the case...

I believe you guys call that "othering"

 

[Gorbles]

Not at all - it implies that all "trans" share a common experience and all "cis" share a common lack of understanding on the issue - which is evidently not the case...

The common experience is marginalisation, and the common lack of understanding is not experiencing that (specifically for being trans). Which is evidently the case. We don't. You don't, I don't. The best we can do is try to listen and learn, the same as we would any other subject where other people might know more than us.

It doesn't mean the people we're talking with automatically know more. It just means they're (far) more likely to, and that listening first, instead of reacting badly to inoffensive labels like "cis" (and yes, comparing it to "Russophobia" is reacting badly, is a better way to approach threads like these.

Like I said: We would if the response the Ukrainian poster gave was limited to: Ah, you're not Ukrainian, got it. That implies you have to be Ukrainian to participate, otherwise you don't understand/can't participate/you're argument can be dismissed on grounds of nationality

Alright, I don't think my arguments are making a difference, so let me just close with:

You keep on repeating that the way "cis" was used was as a way to prevent discussion. You are wrong, for the singular fact that I have participated. Which means it's not "you're cis and you can't participate", it means it was something specific to Snowgerry's argument that made the context useful. Please consider that, instead of assuming Cloud meant for no cis person to participate.

 

[Snowygerry]

The common experience is marginalisation, and the common lack of understanding is not experiencing that (specifically for being trans). Which is evidently the case. We don't. You don't, I don't. The best we can do is try to listen and learn, the same as we would any other subject where other people might know more than us.

It doesn't mean the people we're talking with automatically know more. It just means they're (far) more likely to, and that listening first, instead of reacting badly to inoffensive labels like "cis" (and yes, comparing it to "Russophobia" is reacting badly, is a better way to approach threads like these.

Note I didn't react to the labelling I ignored it - I react to you trying to intellectually justify the labelling.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You keep on repeating that the way "cis" was used was as a way to prevent discussion.

It clearly was in one instance.

You are wrong, for the singular fact that I have participated.

Which was another instance

Which means it's not "you're cis and you can't participate", it means it was something specific to Snowgerry's argument that made the context useful. Please consider that, instead of assuming Cloud meant for no cis person to participate.

I assumed nothing. I opted dismissing people on that criteria isn't beneficial to discussion.

If you're going to represent or paraphrase my arguments, get them right, or better, quote me. Otherwise I have to break my promise to drop it to correct you

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

My point was about the label of cis, no more, no less.

And mine was about dismissal, no more, no less.

OP started a thread. Within threads there is inherently discussion/debate. These are synonymous, declaring they are not is playing semantics. If someone is unhappy with how someone responding to a thread, purely because of their sexuality, how is that not perpetuating division and strife? Are only Trans posters allowed in this thread?

This is a hyper-sensitive topic for some, I truly appreciate that, but it seems unless CFC lines up and specifically agrees with OP, we are the oppression. I would argue OP has extreme views of their own that do not match with moderates that may share many of their leanings.

 

[Gorbles]

And mine was about dismissal, no more, no less.

OP started a thread. Within threads there is inherently discussion/debate. These are synonymous, declaring they are not is playing semantics. If someone is unhappy with how someone responding to a thread, purely because of their sexuality, how is that not perpetuating division and strife?

This is a hyper-sensitive topic for some, I truly appreciate that, but it seems unless CFC lines up and specifically agrees with OP, we are the oppression.

Taken to PM!

 

[Cloud_Strife]

And mine was about dismissal, no more, no less.

OP started a thread. Within threads there is inherently discussion/debate. These are synonymous, declaring they are not is playing semantics. If someone is unhappy with how someone responding to a thread, purely because of their sexuality, how is that not perpetuating division and strife? Are only Trans posters allowed in this thread?

This is a hyper-sensitive topic for some, I truly appreciate that, but it seems unless CFC lines up and specifically agrees with OP, we are the oppression. I would argue OP has extreme views of their own that do not match with moderates that may share many of their leanings.

"Extreme views" like what?

That cis people are oppressing trans people?

That the "debate" around our existence is done to appease cis people's minds?

That cis people still fundamentally have great difficulty in accepting that not everyone is comfortable with their lot in terms of gender and presentation?

That the prevailing view, even from "moderates" is that trans people are effectively creature's to be gawked at? A throwaway joke at best and predators at worst?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

The use of the word Genocide

 

[Arwon]

It's honestly a pretty fair description of what some of the US states are trying to do - make it actually impossible to be trans there.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The use of the word Genocide

What would you call the deliberate action of causing trans people to no longer exist by way of law

Like seriously, they want us gone and you can't even accept that basic fact

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

That cis people are oppressing trans people?

Some certainly are. Not extreme, not unique to trans people.

That the "debate" around our existence is done to appease cis people's minds?

Not really sure what this means. That you exist or not like Santa? Or that you should or can exist?

That cis people still fundamentally have great difficulty in accepting that not everyone is comfortable with their lot in terms of gender and presentation?

Some do, some don't. I think "cis people" is too wide of a bracket on this. Not extreme though.

That the prevailing view, even from "moderates" is that trans people are effectively creature's to be gawked at? A throwaway joke at best and predators at worst?

Don't agree this is the case, but YMMV.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's honestly a pretty fair description of what some of the US states are trying to do - make it actually impossible to be trans there.

Yeah, the references on the first page are quite horrific.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Some certainly are. Not extreme, not unique to trans people.

It absolutely is unique to trans people

Not really sure what this means. That you exist or not like Santa? Or that you should or can exist?

Are you for real? I've been told to my face that I'm not a woman, but a delusional man and that being trans isn't real.

Don't agree this is the case, but YMMV.

Of course you wouldn't, you're not the butt of the jokes, are you now?