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.
to further delve into this
if at that age there was a growing trend of being asexual i would have instead of pondered "am i latently gay and just repressing it?" and instead pondered "oh i'm obviously asexual"
this is especially so if whenever people learned i was asexual they congratulated me on living my true life and being so brave
I will try to respond to the other stuff later but just fyi I don’t think asexuality is a real thing, unless we are just talking about people that completely have no interest in sex.
asexuality is like “I want to get points for being LGBT but I’m actually not LGBT”. They even say “I only want to have sex with people when I’m in a relationship” is a type of asexuality lmao
(1) The self exists.
(2) When we say “I” and “you”, we are referring to the self, not another identity
(3) The self is dual gendered - masculine and feminine
That’s all that needs to be acknowledged for now. I’m not looking to have a deep philosophical / spiritual discussion about what the self is in this thread. If you disagree with any of the 3 claims above, go ahead and state which you disagree with.
Lol, way to assume your conclusion. Earlier you said "the self" was a bit like the familiar "self-conscious" or "self-awareness", but nope you have added the silly (3) where you assume "the self" just ALSO has the property to magically reject trans people. Actually even this you do sloppily, because a trans person could be masculine or feminine, so it is more like the "the self" by your bad definition rejects non-binary or gender non-conforming people, but presumably you also want your (3) in the "the self" to reject trans people.
What I think is so silly about this argument is the normal way to reject trans people is to say something about biological sex and just reject the possibility of having a gender identity different about this. But here you've constructed this philosophy 101 D- argument about "the self" to try and reject trans people. Nope, nope, nope.
I will try to respond to the other stuff later but just fyi I don’t think asexuality is a real thing, unless we are just talking about people that completely have no interest in sex.
asexuality is like “I want to get points for being LGBT but I’m actually not LGBT”. They even say “I only want to have sex with people when I’m in a relationship” is a type of asexuality lmao
This seems wrong. It's like "I don't think asexuality is a thing, unless we are talking about the standard definition of asexuality".
I also don't see any tension with asexuality being included in the umbrella of LGBT+. These people exist. They should be accepted. It's a little different from other things in the umbrella (just as those things are themselves different from the other things in the umbrella) but if an asexual person wants to be part of a community that is accepting of people who have different sexual preferences than most, why is that bad?
Lol, way to assume your conclusion. Earlier you said "the self" was a bit like the familiar "self-conscious" or "self-awareness", but nope you have added the silly (3) where you assume "the self" just ALSO has the property to magically reject trans people. Actually even this you do sloppily, because a trans person could be masculine or feminine, so it is more like the "the self" by your bad definition rejects non-binary or gender non-confor
Yes, trans and “non binary” people have a self. You don’t believe the self is real?
Rick the "identical twins share sexual preferences" doesn't prove as much as you think, as it doesn't disprove theories about womb environment (birth order related or not) or other epigenetical environmental factors.
oh yeah i'm definitely aware of the second son phenomenon and how there's a great evolutionary explanation for it and this is also seen in some animals in the natural world where some of the children do not leave the nest and start their own broods but instead stay behind and care for additional siblings/cousins/nephews etc and families with those caretakers have much lower mortality rates than those without and the theory is they are gay - which is why they aren't flying to coop to start their own
but the reason why that twin thing was mentioned in some of the abstracts are because in some of the rare instances where one is gay/trans and the other is straight it is often studied purely because that's so uncommon and they've found that in many cases the gay/trans one had an undescended testicle
sample sizes for these studies are lol with 1 or 2 sets of twins and it's barely been studied, but nevertheless i find it very interesting
This seems wrong. It's like "I don't think asexuality is a thing, unless we are talking about the standard definition of asexuality".
I also don't see any tension with asexuality being included in the umbrella of LGBT+. These people exist. They should be accepted. It's a little different from other things in the umbrella (just as those things are themselves different from the other things in the umbrella) but if an asexual person wants to b
Have you heard of graysexuality or demisexuality? Or freaking aromanticism which basically means you don’t like romance but you like sex? Or imagine being greysexual and greyromantic, basically meaning you are a person that likes monogamous relationships
Remember the vast majority of people who identify as ace online probably refer to some type of demi or grey asexuality, which is absurd.
Anyway you’re probably right that “I don’t think asexuality is a thing” is probably not right, I just don’t think the popularized version of it is a thing.
Have you heard of graysexuality or demisexuality? Or freaking aromanticism which basically means you don’t like romance but you like sex? Or imagine being greysexual and greyromantic, basically meaning you are a person that likes monogamous relationships
Remember the vast majority of people who identify as ace online probably refer to some type of demi or grey asexuality, which is absurd.
Anyway you’re probably right that “I don’t think ase
Is the self a thing? Does it exist?
btw, according to that chart, a massive chunk of people, particularly women, are now to be considered asexual
craig, you're going to have to say what you actually mean directly instead of trying to paint these wonderful rhetorical snippets
i can't speak for everyone, but i think i speak for most, myself included, that nobody here has any notion what you're trying to get it
please define the self and also explain why it conflicts or doesn't conflict with various stuff like that chart
rut roh, you're really working hard on your application to join team hateful bigot lately
I don’t care, I will fight off the hoard of anti-trans sentiment and the insane excesses of gender abolition/queer liberation. The libs always win in the end. I am inevitable.
Yes the self is one of my metaphysical commitments. I thought this was the politics forum not the philosophy forum.
I don’t care, I will fight off the hoard of anti-trans sentiment and the insane excesses of gender abolition/queer liberation. The libs always win in the end. I am inevitable.
Yes the self is one of my metaphysical commitments. I thought this was the politics forum not the philosophy forum.
The trans identity is political but not the self? Why can’t the self have a voice in politics?
“The Costs of Trans Visibility”
^ Fair enough. How about the costs of self erasure?
Check "arc of history" raise should verify how inevitable has been liberalism in say Iran
The trans identity is political but not the self? Why can’t the self have a voice in politics?
I was just joking around with you man. If you have some kind of point about why the self is related to trans identity I would love to hear it.
I was just joking around with you man. If you have some kind of point about why the self is related to trans identity I would love to hear it.
Trans = self is the claim, whether explicit or implicit, of the overwhelming majority of trans advocates. This is literally the erasure of the self by the trans identity.
Trans = self is the claim, whether explicit or implicit, of the overwhelming majority of trans advocates. This is literally the erasure of the self by the trans identity.
We have different definitions of the self. For me the self is simply a point of view, the individuation of an identity mediated over time. This is like saying the transfer from teen into adulthood is a destruction of the self. In some ways this is correct, but in the ways that matter this is probably incorrect.
Other responses to this could be more Humian in nature, simply the denial that the self is a demonstrated metaphysical commitment and that most people experience the world simply as an undefined bundle of sensations. I don't agree with this position but it is at least defensible.
We have different definitions of the self. For me the self is simply a point of view, the individuation of an identity mediated over time. This is like saying the transfer from teen into adulthood is a destruction of the self. In some ways this is correct, but in the ways that matter this is probably incorrect.
Other responses to this could be more Humian in nature, simply the denial that the self is a demonstrated metaphysical commitment an
We can smoke out your belief with this question:
Is it possible to have a relationship with the self?
From which you get to self acceptance, self development, self dialog, etc.
The arc of history bends slowly but eventually we'll have BASED globalist neoliberal Iran.
For real though I'd say the fact that there are trans Iranians despite the brutal and repressive regime is pretty solid evidence that yeah trans people probably just have been around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgende...
Maybe throughout the ages they would have been sex workers or slaves on pirate ships or traveling performers in an acting troupe or other such roles on the outskirts of society. In other cultures they were integrated into religious practices or assigned various nonbinary social classes.
What I'm trying to say is that this notion that trans people all of a sudden popped up in the year 2000 because of neomarxist postmodernism like James Lindsay thinks is probably a complete fabrication from the historically illiterate.
We can smoke out your belief with this question:
Is it possible to have a relationship with the self?
From which you get to self acceptance, self development, self dialog, etc.
You mean is it possible to evaluate yourself as yourself? I mean yeah why not, internal audits are definitely possible and desirable.
You mean is it possible to evaluate yourself as yourself? I mean yeah why not, internal audits are definitely possible and desirable.
That self you are relating to is not just a placeholder for other identities to overthrow it. The self alone belongs in the mind’s supreme position because it has hidden value which is immense.
The trans identity and the self are in direct opposition to each other because of their core claims. There is no possibility of co-existence; it’s one or the other.
That self you are relating to is not just a placeholder for other identities to overthrow it. The self alone belongs in the mind’s supreme position because it has hidden value which is immense.
The trans identity and the self are in direct opposition to each other because of their core claims. There is no possibility of co-existence; it’s one or the other.
Can you formalize this as a syllogism? Because I’m not seeing the actual logical contradiction between the self and being trans.
You told us about some problem where "the trans identity to replace [the self]". Sure, everyone has some notion of themselves. But your not using that in the generic sense. You have assumed on top of that generic concept your conclusion: "The self is dual gendered - masculine and feminine".
Is what you are trying to say with these two quotes that, say, trans woman has a "self" that is masculine and that identifying as a female is what you mean by "trans identity that replaces the self"? It's all very murky because you are playing this double game of pretending "the self" is a totally benign concept while also trying to claim it is somehow problematic when it comes to trans people.
