What Happened to Katie?

[Stoked]

The unfortunate thing here is while your stance (if it's what you hold) isn't rooted in transphobia unfortunately in its consequences your stance enables transphobia. THat's the distinction here.


Let be come up with an analogy. The same argument could be made about banning Muslim immigration. Trump would say "I don't hate Muslims! I have tons of Muslim friends (and he does). I'm just worried about Muslims coming in from the Middle East and bombing us".

And that's a valid fear. However, and unfortunately, a policy banning an entire race from entering a country sets the stage for incredible amounts of racism. And that's only assuming it would work, despite the fact that it's so easy for terrorists to lie about their religion. SO that's how a policy can become bigoted even if the person voting for it isn't necessarily coming from a stance of bigotry. And unfortunately, if you support policies that are bigoted, that makes you no better than an actual bigot. I hope this makes sense.

And I think this will be very easily clarified as transgender people mingle more with other populations in North America, providing regular people with the opportunity to hear their stances.

Nicely put.

It would religious bigotry and not racism though. But that's a nuance as the result is the same.

ALso I think it does make him better than a bigot as he is much more relatable and approachable, more open minded.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I'll let someone else be the recipient of NAOS's Sam Harris regurgitations.

 

[NAOS]

Well it is functionally equivalent.

not even close. As a term, bigotry doesn't make sense unless there's some reference (implied or otherwise) to a class of people. Since there's none of that here, bigotry doesn't apply in any respect.

 

[fishonjazz]

The unfortunate thing here is while your stance (if it's what you hold) isn't rooted in transphobia unfortunately in its consequences your stance enables transphobia. THat's the distinction here.


Let be come up with an analogy. The same argument could be made about banning Muslim immigration. Trump would say "I don't hate Muslims! I have tons of Muslim friends (and he does). I'm just worried about Muslims coming in from the Middle East and bombing us".

And that's a valid fear. However, and unfortunately, a policy banning an entire race from entering a country sets the stage for incredible amounts of racism. And that's only assuming it would work, despite the fact that it's so easy for terrorists to lie about their religion. SO that's how a policy can become bigoted even if the person voting for it isn't necessarily coming from a stance of bigotry. And unfortunately, if you support policies that are bigoted, that makes you no better than an actual bigot. I hope this makes sense.

And I think this will be very easily clarified as transgender people mingle more with other populations in North America, providing regular people with the opportunity to hear their stances.

Good post and good analogy.

I don't want women with penises to be banned from going into women's bathrooms. That has never been my argument. It would be horrible for them to have to go into a men's bathroom. That would really suck for them.

 

[fishonjazz]

not even close. As a term, bigotry doesn't make sense unless there's some reference (implied or otherwise) to a class of people. Since there's none of that here, bigotry doesn't apply in any respect.

Good point. I should have said you interact with me with hate and intolerance and really discourage conversation, discussion, and learning through those conversations and discussions.
That would be accurate. Pretty much any interaction I have with you leaves me feeling like crap.

I don't know if you take pride in that and it makes you happy or what. It seems like if making people feel like crap bothered you then you would do it less.

So you might not be a bigot but you are really good at impacting people negatively. I don't know if there is a term/label for that or not.

 

[NAOS]

Good point. I should have said you interact with me with hate and intolerance and really discourage conversation, discussion, and learning through those conversations and discussions.
That would be accurate. Pretty much any interaction I have with you leaves me feeling like crap.

I don't know if you take pride in that and it makes you happy or what. It seems like if making people feel like crap bothered you then you would do it less.

So you might not be a bigot but you are really good at impacting people negatively. I don't know if there is a term/label for that or not.

your everyday-paranoiac stance on this issue, which fuels transphobia in the most armchair and privileged way possible, makes me feel like crap. It's the kind of all-encompassing crap that makes me pessimistic about my society.

 

[fishonjazz]

For what it's worth, if someone told me that they felt I was being bigoted towards them (hateful and intolerant) then I would apologize and try to change how I was treating them.
Regardless of whether they belonged to a specific group/category or not.
I think being hateful and intolerant is always a bad thing even if you are only being hateful and intolerant to an individual rather than a whole group of individuals.

 

[Deleted member 848]

the dude with the PhD is speaking down to a Utah-based working class dude (who's also laughed at his workplace) about privilege-- and crucifying him for not being in the academic and/or social circles where he would encounter the perspective necessary to understand transphobia and how it manifests.


Ignore him, Fish.

 

[NAOS]

the dude with the PhD is speaking down to a Utah-based working class dude (who's also laughed at his workplace) about privilege-- and crucifying him for not being in the academic and/or social circles where he would encounter the perspective necessary to understand transphobia and how it manifests.


Ignore him, Fish.

never laughed at his job. But it's funny that you remember that ONE comment and represented it that way. Par for the dalcourse.

 

[NAOS]

the dude with the PhD is speaking down to a Utah-based working class dude (who's also laughed at his workplace) about privilege-- and crucifying him for not being in the academic and/or social circles where he would encounter the perspective necessary to understand transphobia and how it manifests.


Ignore him, Fish.

I paid for every cent of my education and I'm the first person in my family to attend college. After being raised in poverty by a single mom. Bitch.

 

[NAOS]

the dude with the PhD is speaking down to a Utah-based working class dude (who's also laughed at his workplace) about privilege-- and crucifying him for not being in the academic and/or social circles where he would encounter the perspective necessary to understand transphobia and how it manifests.


Ignore him, Fish.

yep, third time quoting this doozie.

This post reveals that I actually give fishonjazz more credit than you do. I actually gave him the credit of thinking for himself, even if I disagree with him. It's YOUR post that rides in from on-high and declares him as someone who is ignorant of transphobic conditions.

More absolutely brilliant irony from dalafascist.

 

[sirkickyass]

One thing we have to keep in mind, and it is a near-universal issue when it comes to a lot of identity-based fear mongering, in deciding your societal virtues you have to make a fundamental trade off between real freedom and security. This is a push-pull process. The only way to be truly "safe" from other people is to have them, and yourself, be very heavily regulated in going about your innocent business. As you open up freedoms for everyone, you run the risk of abuses of that freedom. You can't have it both ways.

We see anxiety over this trade off all the time. Bombings in public places can happen in this country, and many Western societies, because you can't just stop everyone anytime you want and search them. We,collectively, have decided that we're willing to try and police that downside rather than eliminate it and throw out basic freedom of movement along with the bathwater of total security in all public places.

We're having a similar dispute here. The specter is instead some hypothetical possibility of creepy dudes being creepy. Sexual assault and general peeping tom-ery would still be illegal and still be punishable, but the door would be opened slightly wider for it to occur. The argument we're now having is if we want to reduce that risk by some immeasurable amount at the cost of some very awkward life situations for a known small proportion of the population. In effect, taking away their freedom to really live their life as they choose in their own body.

Unfortunately, too many people want to have these kinds of issues both ways. What they really want is to have all their own freedoms and have someone else pay the cost of the increased security and safety. That's the impulse you see when you hear calls for race-based enforcement policies or statutory restroom restrictions. It's trying to have it both ways at someone else's expense. Fundamentally, we all know that isn't right. It's just selfish and mean. And who wants to be selfish and mean?