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.
I just didn't know Luckbox was capable of satire. I will update my database.
Because we discussed the bud light stuff in this thread....video on Modelo's rise. Modelo was already on track to overtake bud light as the top beer...the Dylan thing just made it happen faster
Struggling to understand the point of this thread. The entire argument for blocking puberty (which is reversible) is that somebody who wants to consider (and should do so along with parents and medical professionals) changing the type of puberty they go through is an incredibly private decision but there is a time component.
People who focus on bad laws (such as the recently passed california law where parents should definitely be informed about their children) are dishonest actors in this debate.
People who focus on like how trans activists act online should do what everybody should do: log off. It's like claiming your average Trump supporter is as racist and vitriolic as the racists online. It's obviously false.
Kids deserve privacy and the right to transition under their parents and doctors guidance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Many here, and likely the majority of people, disagree with your final sentence. It's certainly not self-evident.
People who focus on bad laws (such as the recently passed california law where parents should definitely be informed about their children) are dishonest actors in this debate.
Projecting dishonesty on people supporting a law you disagree with seems about as bad a mistake as the kinds of mistake you are criticizing in others.
Consider the case of a young trans kid who fears being rejected by a transphobic family. That kid might connect with a school counselor or a teacher and make a really meaningful human connection, and might choose to share their identity in confidentiality. What that law does is bar district requirements that this student be immediately outed to their transphobic parents in all scenarios, including the worst possible scenarios. You can find that argument compelling or not, but I think it is pretty silly to suggest that someone is being dishonest to state it.
The law in question "prohibit[s] school districts from requiring educators to inform parents about a pronouns or name change without a student’s consent", which is great, and given then rest of 11t's post, I'd thought they'd have agreed. I'm a little confused by that passage.
“It’ll just be our little secret.”
"Sorry Jimmy, I know you shared your preferred pronoun in confidence because your parents are raging transphobes and will kick you out of the house, but the law means I have to tell them. I understand you were just looking for a trusted adult that you could confide in and get some support from, but the law is the law. Good luck!"
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/p...
New estimates show 300,000 youth ages 13-17 identify as transgender in the US
This was as of two years ago. Anyone here living in the U.S. notice an epidemic of trans kids living on the streets after getting kicked out? Me neither.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/p...
This was as of two years ago. Anyone here living in the U.S. notice an epidemic of trans kids living on the streets after getting kicked out? Me neither.
300,000 people is what, 0.1% of the population? You think you'd notice? Would you like to place a wager on what actual data shows about this?
Projecting dishonesty on people supporting a law you disagree with seems about as bad a mistake as the kinds of mistake you are criticizing in others.
Consider the case of a young trans kid who fears being rejected by a transphobic family. That kid might connect with a school counselor or a teacher and make a really meaningful human connection, and might choose to share their identity in confidentiality. What that law does is bar district r
I don't disagree with you, I'm actually arguing the converse that the law itself is bad in that it is an attempt to make "bad parenting" illegal and that the school district simply does the capacity to judge whether or not the parents should be informed; but that the reaction to the law by people who say it is some unbelievably "bad" thing and a major transgression of parental rights are wrong.
This dishonest actors in the trans debate are almost entirely on the side of the transphobes as their goal and motivations seem to be hidden from public discourse lest people be so repulsed that they don't engage with them.
It is an incredibly complex topic, and in an ideal world parents would not be transphobic, but we do not exist in the ideal but instead exist in material reality where the facts actually exist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm actually arguing the converse that the law itself is bad in that it is an attempt to make "bad parenting" illegal k
The law doesn't do anything remotely like this. It has some measures to protect kids from being forced to be outed by school policies in cases where "bad parenting" means the kid is too afraid of their own parents to feel safe coming out to them. But that isn't saying "bad parenting" is illegal. If you want to be a raging transphobe to your kids, well, I'd recommend you don't, but that is still legal.
Yes I agree but the purpose of the law is just that, but the methodology by which it does it is to intentionally curtail the information that a school district gives to a parent.
Like at a parent teacher conference it is the parent who should have the asymmetric information advantage over the school district which the law is intentionally trying to balance out.
Again, I'm not opposed to the law but bad parenting simply cannot be outlawed and if we don't accept that there will be shitty parents who treat their kids poorly (be they transphobes or just *******s) we can get stuck in a viscous circle where the laws never end.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like at a parent teacher conference it is the parent who should have the asymmetric information advantage over the school district which the law is intentionally trying to balance out.
Why?
I understand that people wouldn't want there to be some kind of weird divide created where teachers and schools routinely know things about children that their parents are intentionally kept in the dark about. But that doesn't mean that teachers/schools should never have information that parents don't.
My understanding is that this law doesn't require teachers/schools to keep a child's preferred pronouns, sexual orientation, etc., secret - it just prevents school policy from requiring that it always be disclosed. This seems like a good thing to me. When a school has such a policy, it then means that students who might be struggling with these issues have lost a possible trusted adult or adults that they could confide in, which can't be good for the students' mental health and well-being.
are we going to start keeping things like attendance records and grades secret from parents as well in the event that they may disapprove and take away their allowance?
Why?
I understand that people wouldn't want there to be some kind of weird divide created where teachers and schools routinely know things about children that their parents are intentionally kept in the dark about. But that doesn't mean that teachers/schools should never have information that parents don't.
My understanding is that this law doesn't require teachers/schools to keep a child's preferred pronouns, sexual orientation, etc., secr
The school simply cannot (by virtue of time and the fact they are your child) have more information than you unless you are a dead beat. It is just the nature of the relationship. Another person could have a better understanding of your child as you are potentially blinded by your love, but in terms of raw data that's just not how families work.
Again, I'm not like commenting on the nitty gritty of the law itself just that there is a very real threshold where kids are the responsibility of their parents and any law that impinges upon that relationship should be viewed with skepticism.
If we accept that this law is justified, which it might be for the exact reasons you have stated, it does not mean that another law which has the same effect (teachers do not tell parents about their child's sexuality or gender orientation) might itself be justified due to the manner of its implementation and execution.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
