The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
The only posts I deleted were ones which continued the same discussion after I asked for it to stop (and others responding to the discussion, like 2 posters who wrote mean things about Rick in them). There's nothing missing in the flow of this thread.
i got a post deleted where I said that I thought believing "trans women are women" meant , if the person believing that was a hetero man, a moral imperative to date trans women the same, as it would be horribly transphobic if you actually believe trans women were actually women, to Not desire them sexually if you are hetero.
why did you delete that? it's a direct corollary of the professed ideology.
if you are a hetero man and you don't feel sexually attracted to individuals with a dick who feel they are women you are transphobic according to gender theory doctrine.
and this isn't about uke, this is about every single person who claims that "trans women are women" while being a hetero man.
The only posts I deleted were ones which continued the same discussion after I asked for it to stop (and others responding to the discussion, like 2 posters who wrote mean things about Rick in them). There's nothing missing in the flow of this thread.
And still it accomplished nothing good and manufactured a derail which made things worse.
that is heartfelt and genuine and he fits the definition like a glove
i know you and I disagree often (far more often than uke and I actually), but i don't feel that way about you at all (nor a number of other posters here) - you've always been kind and respectful and I appreciate that from you
a bigot who attacks with smarm is still a bigot
this one of the best essays in recent decades btw
https://www.gawkerarchives.com/on-smarm-...
that is heartfelt and genuine and he fits the definition like a glove
i know you and I disagree often (far more often than uke and I actually), but i don't feel that way about you at all (nor a number of other posters here) - you've always been kind and respectful and I appreciate that from you
Appreciate that and I must be incredibly incredibly nice because I feel like I'm a jerk a lot on this forum.
Well, not on this whole forum. I'm pretty normal in the few threads I post in outside of politics.
Appreciate that and I must be incredibly incredibly nice because I feel like I'm a jerk a lot on this forum.
although i can't think of any with you directly, we all have our moments, I'm sure I've gone over the line with you plenty of times and been a jerk as well
i think people should be judged by their body of work and not by finding a few outliers of them at their worst
Well, not on this whole forum. I'm pretty normal in the few threads I post in outside of politics.
yeah these threads can do bad things to people
a bigot who attacks with smarm is still a bigot
this one of the best essays in recent decades btw
https://www.gawkerarchives.com/on-smarm-...
this 100% mirrors the behavior of many in the thread
I’m rather disappointed no one has personally attacked me itt.
Does nobody truly care about McMuffin!?
There are a whole bunch of reasons why people might discriminate on the basis of superfluous evidence. For example, there is evidence that men are starting fewer academic collaborations with female colleagues post #meetoo.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/new-research...
Part of this might be unconscious, but given the high social costs (particularly in universities) of being accused of transphobia, racism, s
There are obvious legal reasons why employers will not and should not hire applicants who choose to advertise themselves as 'non-binary'.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why people might discriminate on the basis of superfluous evidence. For example, there is evidence that men are starting fewer academic collaborations with female colleagues post #meetoo.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/new-research...
Part of this might be unconscious, but given the high social costs (particularly in universities) of being accused of transphobia, racism, s
lol, they're dusting off all the excuses from the 1970's for why women shouldn't be in the workplace.
Radical ideology steamrolling through medicine imo
The final Cass Report dropped today, and it's not going to make pleasant reading for gender ideologs.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/...
Although some think the clinical approach should be based on a social justice model, the NHS works in an evidence-based way.
oof.
When the Review started, the evidence base, particularly in relation to the use of puberty blockers and masculinising/feminising hormones, had already been shown to be weak.
It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion
3 In summary, the evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender affirming treatment reduces suicide risk.
something tells me none of those people saying none of that stuff was true and it was all just hateful lies spread by transphobes and bigots will be apologizing for their conduct in the thread though
The act of inclusion (along with diversity and equity) is among the highest moral values in the reality of children. And for good reason. With that said, society being more inclusive of the marginalized throughout the past 100 years, while a necessary good, was not some profound moral achievement.. unless you’re stuck in the reality of the child. Of which there seem to be many.
Like I said earlier in this thread, the trans issue is going to end up being the ultimate reality check for this low level, child-like morality. The idea that affirming a gender would solve suicidal ideation can only gain traction among those who hold inclusion to be the paramount moral act.
Suicidal ideation, meaning crisis, despair - these are adult issues. To effectively deal with them, it’s time to put childish things away. This is true no matter how many degrees you have and no matter how many people erroneously give you the title of ‘expert’.
something tells me none of those people saying none of that stuff was true and it was all just hateful lies spread by transphobes and bigots will be apologizing for their conduct in the thread though
You should quote some posts. I think people were probably saying there are a bunch of hateful transphobes, which I think is true. But what exactly did people say were lies? Like, say Luciom. I don't think he gives a **** about whatever the doctor is saying. I think he hates trans, who he thinks are some kind of marxists or something. And I don't think the root of that is really specifically about being trans, but about being generally deviating from traditions and norms. The psychological roots of being a reactionary or fascist are a reflexive hatred or revulsion of anything really different and non-conforming and not some kind of philosophical or rational thinking.
The final Cass Report dropped today, and it's not going to make pleasant reading for gender ideologs.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/...
oof.
I know you didn't read a word of the report and you are likely just pasting bits others have noted.
The bulk of the study is focused on GIDS, which we know was ran incompetently.
The culmination of their findings amount to: The studies performed have been too limited in scope to provide a reasonable base of evidence to support either side of the argument.
They also seem to lend credence to social contagion in their summary points but DONT ADDRESS THAT IN THEIR STUDY AT ALL. Considering their claim on the evidence, this is egregiously irresponsible
I know you didn't read a word of the report and you are likely just pasting bits others have noted.
The bulk of the study is focused on GIDS, which we know was ran incompetently.
The culmination of their findings amount to: The studies performed have been too limited in scope to provide a reasonable base of evidence to support either side of the argument.
They also seem to lend credence to social contagion in their summary points but DONT ADDR
How is it even possible to think of giving puberty blockers (or in some cases even surgery ) to gender disphoric minors if you aren't absolutely sure it will help them very significantly on average, given the permanent damage involved in case you are wrong?
One side of the argument is "you don't even think about mutilating minors unless you are willing to bet your life it's indispensable to do so, and very clearly, transparently, to their benefit", the other is "it might help them".
There is a monstrous asymmetry when you operate with permanent damage on minors, the onus of proof is entirely on the side wanting to operate, and one side of the argument automatically wins (as in, complete ban to those procedures is the only moral choice) unless and until the other side proves beyond any resonable doubt their procedures work wonders on minors affected by gender disphoria.
Any shade of doubt is much more than enough to make the "stop this now" side win
