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.
It's not just the "uke definition", it is also my definition and the definition of everyone else on this thread.
Do you really think that if people as far apart ideologically as uke and Luciom agree on a definition, it's likely to be wrong?
But I'll ask you again to find another definition and share it with us.
It's not just the "uke definition", it is also my definition and the definition of everyone else on this thread.
Do you really think that if people as far apart ideologically as uke and Luciom agree on a definition, it's likely to be wrong?
But I'll ask you again to find another definition and share it with us.
It's uke's thread tho.
So just to be clear, you are asserting that the definition of trans, or your definition, which you feel is aligned with uke and everyone... is 'someone that declares themselves as such'.
Is that right?
Here is the part of the Wikipedia entry you posted which is a definition.
"A transgender person (often shortened to trans person) is someone whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth."
Now who do you think determines someone's gender identity? I know it's a tough question, but if you can figure out what the meaning of "identity" is, you'll get a very strong clue.
Uke started the thread, but that doesn't make it his thread. He has no more control over it than do you or I.
Oh hey I started it? Well then! Yes, jbutton, you have to obey all my definitions now!
No, I didn't declare any definition. The wiki one is perfectly fine, and perfectly consistent with my observation that non-binary people "may" identify as transgender, but also may not. Again, that isn't a definition, it is an observation.
That said, there is nothing at all wrong with a concept being subjective in the sense that some people will find it describes their identity and others won't.
Not sure what the bolded really means, but I guess it's false in many cases, such as making allowences for medical conditions. Which was the original idea with trans issues.
You don’t get a handicap parking pass cuz you subjectively feel handicapped. You don't get service animals due to subjectively thinking you are blind or have ptsd.
You also can't get affirmative action because you subjectively feel like a minority.
People abuse both the parking and service animal systems badly, but that's reason for caution.
If you want to abandon the original medical argument for a purely subjective one, i guess maybe 15% of the population would accept that in the US.
You think 15% of people would claim to be trans? What benefit would they be getting?
No, i don't.
I think that if you switch from "GD is a difficult medical condition that warrants some special allowences,"
To "gender is purely subjective and the criterion for those allowences should be one's subjective state."
Then maybe 15% of the population would remain on board.
E.g. only 26% support males playing female sports as it is right now. If you switch from an ostensibly medical argument to one based on subjective feeling, i'm confident that number would go even lower.
Not sure what the bolded really means, but I guess it's false in many cases, such as making allowences for medical conditions. Which was the original idea with trans issues.
You don’t get a handicap parking pass cuz you subjectively feel handicapped. You don't get service animals due to subjectively thinking you are blind or have ptsd.
You do get a handicap parking space if youre legally considered handicapped. You also get service animals if youre blind. I hope this helps you on your journey of discovery in regards to this issue.
You do get a handicap parking space if youre legally considered handicapped. You also get service animals if youre blind. I hope this helps you on your journey of discovery in regards to this issue.
But the criteria are, as objectively as possible, having those conditions which are in turn based, as much as possible, on objective medical criteria.
Your criterion for being blind isn't that you say you are blind. Nor for being handicapped or a minority. Not even for ptsd.
Rob and Uke seem to be saying the criterion for trans should be saying you're trans.
But the criteria are, as objectively as possible, having those conditions which are in turn based, as much as possible, on objective medical criteria.
Your criterion for being blind isn't that you say you are blind. Nor for being handicapped or a minority. Not even for ptsd.
Rob and Uke seem to be saying the criterion for trans should be saying you're trans.
I didn't say that it should be that way, I said that's the way it is. We debated this months ago. There's really no way to prove one is trans.
But the criteria are, as objectively as possible, having those conditions which are in turn based, as much as possible, on objective medical criteria.
Your criterion for being blind isn't that you say you are blind. Nor for being handicapped or a minority. Not even for ptsd.
Rob and Uke seem to be saying the criterion for trans should be saying you're trans.
if you study the issue deeply enough, rather than debate it on forums where you are correct in saying that most people dont understand this issue, you will eventually realize transgender men are men and transgender women are women. Once you realize this, then your arguement seems trite,
In truth your argument is no different than any other discriminatory belief , but it’s only discriminatory because you dont believe the truth. You sound indistinguishable from any other person who will never accept that trans women are women. These arguments have been made millions of times before and indeed were made much more strongly earlier in this thread. The idea that trans people arent the gender they claim fails scientifically.
I didn't say that it should be that way, I said that's the way it is. We debated this months ago. There's really no way to prove one is trans.
I understand your view is that few if any gender differences in society should exist anyway.
Most disagree.
I guess it's hard to prove someone has ptsd. Or even if they've had a heart attack. That doesn't mean we go entirely by self reporting.
I think there is good evidence GD is real, and therefore to judge who has it.
Because most people do favor different treatments of the genders, they'll never agree that anybody who says magic words should be housed in women's prison, recieve women's scholarships or even play the ladies event at the WSOP.
I understand your view is that few if any gender differences in society should exist anyway.
Most disagree.
I guess it's hard to prove someone has ptsd. Or even if they've had a heart attack. That doesn't mean we go entirely by self reporting.
I think there is good evidence GD is real, and therefore to judge who has it.
Because most people do favor different treatments of the genders, they'll never agree that anybody who says magic words sho
Gender Dysphoria is a diagnosible (?) mental condition, which may or may not be present in trans people. I kinda thought it would have to be in order for people to go through all that trouble, but apparently that is not always the case. Again, we discussed all these things months ago. If you weren't reading the thread then, you would be advised to go back and do so when you have the time.
I agree with you about the prison issue, buy that isn't happening in the US. I read here that it happened once in Scotland, IIRC.
Regarding scholarships and poker tournaments, I think there should be no gender-exclusive categories to begin with. But I don't think that's happening enough up worry about.
Not sure what the bolded really means, but I guess it's false in many cases, such as making allowences for medical conditions. Which was the original idea with trans issues.
You don’t get a handicap parking pass cuz you subjectively feel handicapped. You don't get service animals due to subjectively thinking you are blind or have ptsd.
You also can't get affirmative action because you subjectively feel like a minority.
People abuse both the
You can't avoid subjectivity here. By its nature it is about how someone identifies. If you tell me you identify as a woman, who am I to say otherwise?
In rare places in our society we have to make external decisions, for example in prisons, where there might be safeguard requirements like psychiatric evaluation or whatever, but in the vast majority of situations I have nothing to do but to accept what you tell me. And this isn't unique to trans issues, all sorts of things are felt personally and hard to completely objectively measure people's inner thoughts about.
i think you guys are hung up on how i phrased it and felt like i already phrased it, nobody wishes their child has autism
While there are a number of things we differ on here (some or maybe most of them being a matter of degree), this clarification gets us to a point where it's probably not worth going back and forth on the rest, especially in this thread. 😀
gross, will be sure to stick to the prairie and mountains then if i ever venture up yonder - do you have poutine or is that only found in the east?
Well, it originates in Quebec so it is definitely more plentiful (and probably better) back east, but you can find it here as well.
Actually, that's exactly what it means.
Definitions of words in this context are not up to the individual right? You don't bend it based on your individual whim.
Someone isn't trans just because they say they are...there is a definition of trans, and you fit into or you don't right?
Wrong.
I suspect maybe "gender identity" is what's throwing you off. I'll go back to your source here, Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_ide...
Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender.
Some people do not identify with some, or all, of the aspects of gender associated with their biological sex; some of those people are transgender, non-binary, or genderqueer.
Going back to the definition you quoted and bolded:
Transgender is also an umbrella term; in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may also include people who are non-binary or genderqueer
Since only the person in question can determine their own gender identity (which includes deciding if they're non-binary or genderqueer), only they can determine if they are transgender.
It's not just the "uke definition", it is also my definition and the definition of everyone else on this thread.
Do you really think that if people as far apart ideologically as uke and Luciom agree on a definition, it's likely to be wrong?
But I'll ask you again to find another definition and share it with us.
nono wait. I accept uke has that definition but I don't agree with that.
for example for uke a minor can be trans for me it can't because part of being trans for me definitionally requires having spent years after puberty consistently feeling and behaving as if you are of the opposite sex.
also there is no gender spectrum and no "non binary" at all, that's completely made up, there are only two sexes.
same as I know what leftists mean when they say racist but I consider that definition useless.
I actually repeatedly discussed why one of the worst things done in society by the left is attempting to destroy the meaning of words and violently try to force their absurd meanings on us
You can't avoid subjectivity here. By its nature it is about how someone identifies. If you tell me you identify as a woman, who am I to say otherwise?
In rare places in our society we have to make external decisions, for example in prisons, where there might be safeguard requirements like psychiatric evaluation or whatever, but in the vast majority of situations I have nothing to do but to accept what you tell me. And this isn't unique to
the fact should simply be that how you identify should never have any legal implication at all full stop.
and for prisons , it's not about mental evaluations. even if you could objectively somehow verify that person with a dick feels he is a woman, people with dicks (aka as men, no matter how they feel, because men and women are biological defined) shouldn't be imprisoned with people with vaginas.
because we don't want prison rape to cause pregnancies among other things
nono wait. I accept uke has that definition but I don't agree with that.
for example for uke a minor can be trans for me it can't because part of being trans for me definitionally requires having spent years after puberty consistently feeling and behaving as if you are of the opposite sex.
also there is no gender spectrum and no "non binary" at all, that's completely made up, there are only two sexes.
same as I know what leftists mean when the
Wasn't trying to imply you (or even I) believe all that stuff, just that being trans can only be determined by the individual.
Wasn't trying to imply you (or even I) believe all that stuff, just that being trans can only be determined by the individual.
no it can't, it must observable from outside.
being trans means being of a sex and thinking you are the opposite and living as the opposite sex for years, for me.
it would be an observable condition
no it can't, it must observable from outside.
being trans means being of a sex and thinking you are the opposite and living as the opposite sex for years, for me.
it would be an observable condition
I don't know how you think it would necessarily be observable. For at least 100 years there have been plenty of XX females who have short haircuts, dress in androgynous or traditionally masculine clothing, etc. but do not consider themselves trans men. I go out to music clubs in Portland filled with mostly youngish people, 20s to early 30s, several times a week, and I see so many different kinds of people (in the crowd and in the bands) who I would have no idea what gender they consider themselves by looking at them.
So many people look androgynous, and it's not even that rare for me to see something like someone with a very masculine face, sometimes even with a full beard, wearing a dress. I'm pretty sure Portland has more trans people per capita than any other city in the world, and I go all the time to the areas they're most likely to congregate, but I still couldn't reliably guess who considered themselves trans by looking at them, and sometimes I wouldn't even be able to tell what their genetic sex was. These people do not "live as" any particular sex. I wouldn't even say I live as a particular sex. I certainly look like a man, but I don't think I would live my life any differently if I were a woman.
I don't know how you think it would necessarily be observable. For at least 100 years there have been plenty of XX females who have short haircuts, dress in androgynous or traditionally masculine clothing, etc. but do not consider themselves trans men. I go out to music clubs in Portland filled with mostly youngish people, 20s to early 30s, several times a week, and I see so many different kinds of people (in the crowd and in the bands)
observable doesn't mean looks only.
it means detectable clearly and consistently in behavioral patterns.
I understand that a culture that has lost all basic decency can make it harder to have a baseline for normality but in normal cultures it exists.
there aren't plenty of females that structurally wear men clothes with very short hairs actually, at least not in Italy, and especially not among heterosexuals.
I can only think of one famous one in tv for ex and she is a ultra radical leftist lesbian lawyer famous for picking the most extreme cases (like rented wombs went wrong and stuff like this).
and I never met one IRL. I am talking teachers, bus drivers, waiters, people you met routinely, I don't think I ever met a woman who systematically dresses like a man no.
so that would indeed be part of being trans if it happened.
now in the most "progressive" (degenerate) areas of the USA I suppose that would be common but when it's just a behavior to signal being a "rebel" it's like the disgusting practice of male nail polishing in singers that happened a while ago.
some behaviors can change from being indicative of gender to be indicative of rebellion/perversion , then you will look at other behaviors.
I mean in your culture you dress so horrifyingly bad with no basic aesthetics and decency so often there aren't clear cut gender difference in that anymore at Walmart or places like that. but in normal countries there are
I really don't know what you mean by "behavioral patterns". I don't think I personally exhibit any behavioral patterns that would be indicative of gender. I guess my playing poker is more common for men than for women, but there are still plenty of women who play poker, and most other things I do are either not indicative at all or are behaviors more common for women.
I also think it's funny that you think the country with the biggest economy, most political control, and largest influence on the culture of the world is not a "normal country".
