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.
lol these guys get so hung up on basics. Trans men can give birth. That isnt some false thing. You can get all mad and stomp your feet about calling trans men “men” if you want, but there is no need to pretend anyone is claiming something biologically impossible. What nonsense.
Those are the basics of your ideology
. I.e. gender is a largely nefarious social construct. One needn't have gd to be trans. Non binary... etc. Etc. Eventually you land on "men can give birth."
Most people don't believe that. Like most don't believe the wine is blood. For very similar reasons.
In your mind, it seems, this makes them some combination of malevolent and ignorant. So the demand is not just rights, like marriage and employment. It's a demand that everyone conform to the ideology. We mustn't say "ladies and gentleman" or "a woman's right to choose." Because to not conform to your ideology is an attack.
Much like people who think saying "happy holidays" is an attack on Christmas/Christians.
I didn’t think it was possible but Luciom might not be a shoe-in for the Scum-baggiest Poster Award if rickroll keeps this up.
I mean, you are either straight or you are not. I'm all for people banging whomever they want, but if we are going to describe it, straight is pretty limiting by definition.
Its crude and outdated in its own way, but take something like the kinsey scale. I guess I'd call myself a theoretical 1. If you want to call that "not straight", ok, I guess I'm fine with that, but I think "straight" vs "not straight" is a bit of a silly dichotomy for human sexuality that seems to be much more about spectrums.
Those are the basics of your ideology
. I.e. gender is a largely nefarious social construct. One needn't have gd to be trans. Non binary... etc. Etc. Eventually you land on "men can give birth."
Most people don't believe that. Like most don't believe the wine is blood. For very similar reasons.
In your mind, it seems, this makes them some combination of malevolent and ignorant. So the demand is not just rights, like marriage and employm
There is basically zero ideological component to this. It's just an objective fact that trans men can give birth. There is little need for this faux-routine where one pretends not to understand the obvious context here is trans men. You can get as mad as you wish that trans men refer to themselves as "men" and try and paint whatever ideological nemesis you want, nobody is forcing you to conform to anything, but we can make fun of stupid statements.
I was under the impression that straight strictly meant sex with the opposite gender and everything else under the queer umbrella. I could be totally wrong, as I'm confessedly out of touch on these things.
There is basically zero ideological component to this. It's just an objective fact that trans men can give birth. There is little need for this faux-routine where one pretends not to understand the obvious context here is trans men. You can get as mad as you wish that trans men refer to themselves as "men" and try and paint whatever ideological nemesis you want, nobody is forcing you to conform to anything, but we can make fun of stupid sta
We all agree that we're drinking wine right? Nothing ideological about that.
And since the wine is literally Jesus's blood, then it must be objectively true that we are drinking Jesus's blood and anyone who disagrees is stupid and evil.
We all agree that we're drinking wine right? Nothing ideological about that.
And since the wine is literally Jesus's blood, then it must be objectively true that we are drinking Jesus's blood and anyone who disagrees is stupid and evil.
You missed the point. Observing that trans men sometimes get pregnant is just an observation about things that people do. Same as we can observe things Christians do. You are more than welcome to your own ideological beliefs about that observation and if you choose to to refuse to refer to trans men as "men" - if you must - that's disappointing, but you do you.
ES2, you can explain this until you're blue in the face, but he's just not going to get it. He's very, very drunk on the blood.
I don't think Uke or most trans activists believe this. They believe that gender has a biological basis that is separate from sex and sexuality.
Why do you think I think this? You’re about as far off from correctly characterizing me views as ES2 is here.
I care little at all for nature vs nurture debates. We just be kind and accepting of trans people regardless of any “biologically basis” or lack there of. Same as the parallel debate a decade prior about gay people, nature vs nurture is a perhaps interesting side quest if one cares but doesn’t influence the core acceptance argument.
Why do you think I think this? You’re about as far off from correctly characterizing me views as ES2 is here.
I care little at all for nature vs nurture debates. We just be kind and accepting of trans people regardless of any “biologically basis” or lack there of. Same as the parallel debate a decade prior about gay people, nature vs nurture is a perhaps interesting side quest if one cares but doesn’t influence the core acceptance argument.
I think it because it's necessary for your views to have coherence.
You can't believe that people are influenced to be trans while at the same time supporting medical interventions of youth.
And I think a large part of the reason why homosexuality is so accepted is because the nature side won that debate.
Why do you think I think this? You’re about as far off from correctly characterizing me views as ES2 is here.
I care little at all for nature vs nurture debates. We just be kind and accepting of trans people regardless of any “biologically basis” or lack there of. Same as the parallel debate a decade prior about gay people, nature vs nurture is a perhaps interesting side quest if one cares but doesn’t influence the core acceptance argument.
I really don't believe you do care little about nature v nurture .
If it isn't 100% nature about being trans, then claims about people or society "making you trans" can be true, by environment.
It was very relevant for gay people to establish that it was 100% nature, that's how you can treat "conversion therapy" like the bullshit it is.
I think it because it's necessary for your views to have coherence.
You can't believe that people are influenced to be trans while at the same time supporting medical interventions of youth.
It isn't necessary in any way. Being trans could in principle be - I don't know or care if this is true - 100% "nurture", but it wouldn't change the observation that for whatever reason it appears that some small percentage of humans very strongly identify in this way and for instance might experience acute gender dysphoria. What medical interventions are or are not appropriate in this situation stand or fall on their own feet regardless of the nature vs nurture debate.
And I think a large part of the reason why homosexuality is so accepted is because the nature side won that debate.
I think the exact scientific explanation is still complicated, but more importantly I've never thought it made any difference. If someone is only being accepting of gay people because you think the "nature" side won, than those are just homophobic people.
It seems to me that the issue really raises from the right being upset that the words men and women were hijacked to mean something broader than male and female. The right want man and male and woman and female to remain synonymous. The transactivists use of men and women and adding trans or cis as a modifier is objectionable and offensive to them. Their logic is that if you don't expand the terminology you don't need the modifiers.
The whole pronoun thing is even more ridiculous - fighting over words used to simplify conversation and writing based on ideology- as we use pronouns with vast imprecision anyways and we have modified them repeatedly in the last 200 years. What is even more ridiculous is that the posters that fight the pronouns the most are those that don't know the difference between your/you're and there/their. Losern and wreckem claiming some need for grammatical consistency is laughable.
Cordi claimed it was a 11y old on blockers, I wonder why he chose to lie to give the impression the kid never had any puberal advantage
I mean, her being on blockers was material to the court allowing her on the team in the first place. She was originally barred and sued.
Its reported multiple places that she has been on blockers since 2020 when she was 10, which I'm assuming was part of the case.
Give an inch, they'll take a mile.
Good on you, girls from West Virginia.
Also, Becky Pepper-Jackson is 13 years old, bigger than everyone else out there, and ended up with the top score at the competition in question, putting up a throw that went a full 3 feet past the #2 contender.
Multiple middle schools attended the competition. Only five girls refused to compete.
You can see the list here:
So she won in a group of 14 lol.
Shot Put 15.88 m / 52' 1¼" Kennedy Blahnik Algoma, WI Sacramento, CA 07/31/10 - Thats the current 13 year old girl shot put national record. Its a full 20 feet past Becky. Holy ****, this Kennedy Blahnik person must be a 24 year old dude!
Sure seems like a national emergency to me. Lets spin up a gestapo arm to track down these kids who *checks notes* want to play sports!
The only inch I see being made a mile here is you seemingly having the confidence to put this **** out in the public like your analytical skills hold any weight.
Just for context, the 9-10 year old girls shot put record is still further than Becky's throw.
Little girls literally 3 years younger than her are stomping out her shot put distance and you guys think shes out there abusing other girls by participating
Just for context, the 9-10 year old girls shot put record is still further than Becky's throw.
Little girls literally 3 years younger than her are stomping out her shot put distance and you guys think shes out there abusing other girls by participating
I thought i had been pretty clear, if the individual is actually on blockers since the beginning of puberty the advantage if anything is pretty small on average, so unless the individual is exceptional it won't matter too much.
Yet, we really really really really don't want to validate puberty blockers being used on healthy minors, so we shouldn't reward taking them in any way (while we try to actually make it illegal)
I thought i had been pretty clear, if the individual is actually on blockers since the beginning of puberty the advantage if anything is pretty small on average, so unless the individual is exceptional it won't matter too much.
Yet, we really really really really don't want to validate puberty blockers being used on healthy minors, so we shouldn't reward taking them in any way (while we try to actually make it illegal)
"We should punish children for having a brain because I don't agree with the current medical treatment laid out for them by adults"
There is no way to frame your stance without sounding evil
