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.
Uke, I’m curious do you deny the social influence of trans identification like coordi as well? When teens tell stories of going down a rabbit hole of trans content + finding the trans community on social media, this has no influence on their trans identification?
I’ve never really cared one way or the other. Trans people exist. We should focus our efforts on supporting and uplifting these people. The exact nature/nurture combination isn’t terribly interesting to me and seems to mostly function in these debates as a way to delegitimize trans people, as in if there is some ~social~ aspect whatever that means that somehow scores points against trans people. And the devil is in the details here of what exactly is meant. For instance, gender expression in society is culturally influenced, so while trans people have widely occurred in cultures and throughout history, the exact expression in any given place and time certainly seems to depend on the local culture.
It is also harmful in a different group, middle-aged men, because they tend to be married with children and it breaks up their families.
I dunno I get the urge to blame fake trans people for every societal ill but something tells me that the real problem with cis straight men wrecking their families might be located elsewhere.
I’ve never really cared one way or the other. Trans people exist. We should focus our efforts on supporting and uplifting these people. The exact nature/nurture combination isn’t terribly interesting to me and seems to mostly function in these debates as a way to delegitimize trans people, as in if there is some ~social~ aspect whatever that means that somehow scores points against trans people. And the devil is in the details here of what
This is like the "lefties at more mentally ill than righties because they see therapists more often" point.
People are out more away from right wingers not because they're less trans or queer or gay in red states but because they fear the ramifications of coming out far less in blue states.
Like Dems aren't more mentally ill than Republicans. They just seek out more therapy.
oh look for the million and first time uke avoids answering questions directly related to this thread and his own beliefs in favor or name-calling or language policing. Thanks for showing up
tans ideology lead to an explosion in trans
trans-gender
trans-ition
If I'm going to publish a novel i'll take your advice and get an editor. but for now, stop embarrassing yourself and at least try to contribute something
I’m just hoping you guys figure out ‘trans’ is an adjective so you look less silly when you butcher basic sentences using it.
I’ve never really cared one way or the other. Trans people exist. We should focus our efforts on supporting and uplifting these people. The exact nature/nurture combination isn’t terribly interesting to me and seems to mostly function in these debates as a way to delegitimize trans people, as in if there is some ~social~ aspect whatever that means that somehow scores points against trans people. And the devil is in the details here of what
Good thing you said gender expression is culturally influenced rather than socially influenced because it might have looked like you were agreeing with me — which would’ve been bad since I have the ick.
You spend all your time in this thread quoting and supporting anti-trans rhetoric while playing the victim across the main threads
If you think that is useful contribution then I have a counter point to sell you
Like if you really are generally okay with trans people and only care about womens sports then maybe stand on that stance for a couple of days? Admonish bad posts, point out bad opinions, defend your stance a little? Quit this whin
the difference between you and uke is that uke doesn't engage, he just smugly poo poos
notice how much positive dialogue we've had in the last few days and how that was a time he wasn't here pissing all over everything
this is why i still like and respect you but never found a shred of decency or value in uke's existence
and i have called out some bad posts here at times, but it's often redundant because by the time i see it the mob has already seen and engaged so there's not much point
there's many posts i've given a +1 too that had some pretty bad statements that i disagreed with personally but still gave the +1 to simply because there were also some good salient points within that i thought were well constructed
You don’t care about the distinction between social and cultural but you chose, whether consciously or not, cultural even though I asked you about social.
Me: Is trans identification socially influenced?
You: Gender expression is culturally influenced.
This is immature behavior.
It always amazes me how some people just can't use "trans" in a sentence. It is "explosion of trans PEOPLE". You wouldn't say that immigration led to an "explosion of black", no it is black PEOPLE.
You could say "blacks" though, or "gays" or "whites" or "asians" or "latinos" etc.
"Trans" works by analogy.
I’ve never really cared one way or the other. Trans people exist. We should focus our efforts on supporting and uplifting these people. The exact nature/nurture combination isn’t terribly interesting to me and seems to mostly function in these debates as a way to delegitimize trans people, as in if there is some ~social~ aspect whatever that means that somehow scores points against trans people. And the devil is in the details here of what
No thank you. As this thread has shown me, I should focus my efforts on making sure children don't get killed by guns, commit suicide with guns, get mauled by pit bulls or get breast augmentations.
Focusing my efforts on supporting and uplifting men who think they're women is not very high up on my list.
Let me guess. Transphobic?
You could say "blacks" though, or "gays" or "whites" or "asians" or "latinos" etc.
"Trans" works by analogy.
When you put the pluralizing "s" at the end you can tell the difference between the adjective and the noun. Not so for "trans". This is why it sounds so incredibly jarring and obviously wrong. But if you have mainstream media referring to trans people the group as just "trans", please do share!
You don’t care about the distinction between social and cultural but you chose, whether consciously or not, cultural even though I asked you about social.
Me: Is trans identification socially influenced?
You: Gender expression is culturally influenced.
This is immature behavior.
Ok. I wasn't making any particular distinction between "society" and "culture" when I used BOTH words in the sentence: "Gender expression in society is culturally influenced. Treat them as synonymous for the larger (ignored) point of my post if you like.
Well most countries don't consider elective cosmetic surgery healthcare to be covered by the public, nor do private insurance companies usually cover it in most countries
Yeah but you agree presumably that while certain birth defects or burns or other things that are technically “cosmetic” but ultimately very important to the person’s wellbeing should probably be covered.
But ok, maybe we have that conversation and get to the point where we agree to say “alright this should not be covered”, does that mean you also think that hormone treatment and talk therapy should also not be covered for trans medicine? I’m just wondering how far you take this principle because it will get to the point where we’re basically just disagreeing with whether trans is something we need to treat as a medicine thing, or you just think it’s a body modification fixation that should never be covered in any circumstance.
Yeah but you agree presumably that while certain birth defects or burns or other things that are technically “cosmetic” but ultimately very important to the person’s wellbeing should probably be covered.
But ok, maybe we have that conversation and get to the point where we agree to say “alright this should not be covered”, does that mean you also think that hormone treatment and talk therapy should also not be covered for trans medicine? I’m
Obviously this. We've been told numerous times we're not allowed to call it a mental health issue so it's perfectly sane people choosing to surgically alter their own bodies and this should not be covered with my tax dollars.
If a youngster can be convince to die for god , djihâd , I guess they could be convinced for other stuff less radical…
Doesn't fit the narrative. We have to believe the recent influx of trans people is because they finally feel free to be trans. Not that it's just a fad.
it really doesn’t. Biology 101 will inform you that you can’t change your chromosomes. But that just ain’t what transgender people are saying. They are saying they identify differently from their sex. There is nothing in biology 101 or any other class that says that is impossible. It’s a category error.
Great discussion you’re having!
The difference between avatar and life is that avatar is created outside of reality.
You can created and be w.e you want online in video game because there is no biology rules and it’s fine .
But trying to promote to a 5 years old kid that anything is possible to avoid what reality really is , seem to me it will create some big issues later on ….
Kids should be teach on what reality is and how to cope with it , not to escape it at the first opportunity.
Now if later in life , being tested it on , being assured who he/her is , then ok fine .
But struggling in life is part of life and is an important step to know who you really are imo .
Remember high school ? Surely you changed from there and where you were 5-10 years old .
Your body and mental changes a lot through many interactions trough genetics, hormones, social interaction , etc .
To believe a 5-7 is shielded from all of this and knows who he is when he can’t even write or read is fiction to me .
Especially when grown adult trans woman claiming they are a woman can’t even describe what being a woman is ….
Ain’t because some transgender say so means they are right and all phd in biology are wrong .
Feelings can be wrong .
The difference between avatar and life is that avatar is created outside of reality.
You can created and be w.e you want online in video game because there is no biology rules and it’s fine .
But trying to promote to a 5 years old kid that anything is possible to avoid what reality really is , seem to me it will create some big issues later on ….
Kids should be teach on what reality is and how to cope with it , not to escape it at the first o
I think teaching kids that they can grow up to be whoever they want to be, they can love whoever they want to love, and that it’s ok to be different - these are very positive normal messages. Heck that’s the subject of a million children’s books with simple morals that have nothing to do with the kind of political culture war battles we have in this thread.
I think teaching kids that they can grow up to be whoever they want to be, they can love whoever they want to love, and that it’s ok to be different - these are very positive normal messages. Heck that’s the subject of a million children’s books with simple morals that have nothing to do with the kind of political culture war battles we have in this thread.
The dishonesty is painful. We never taught boys they could be girls if they wanted to. We taught them they could grow up to become doctors, lawyers, teachers or insert any of the other professions you can think of.
Indeed it's okay to be different. What's not a normal positive message is telling a 7 year old boy he's a girl.
Obviously this. We've been told numerous times we're not allowed to call it a mental health issue so it's perfectly sane people choosing to surgically alter their own bodies and this should not be covered with my tax dollars.
You're arguing against a ghost here. Many people would call me a transmedicalist because I believe you need a diagnosis, to go through talk therapy, etc, before you start transitioning. I don't believe in gender affirmation as a form of treatment. I believe we need to be honest with people about the potential negative side effects of the procedures and medications that they are being prescribed.
I'm also not going to deny the reality that there has been a consistent class of people in society that seek to change their gender to be different from their natal sex. I don't think this happens on accident, and it seems like they live happier lives due to this change.
As far as whether they have a mental illness, the mental illness is gender dysphoria. Being trans is the identity of a person who transitions due to their gender dysphoria, but it is not equivalent to the mental illness itself.
The dishonesty is painful. We never taught boys they could be girls if they wanted to. We taught them they could grow up to become doctors, lawyers, teachers or insert any of the other professions you can think of.
Indeed it's okay to be different. What's not a normal positive message is telling a 7 year old boy he's a girl.
Professions is great, but the general positive and great message about accepting people who are different and being proud of who you are and that you can be whoever you want is much much broader than just doctors vs lawyers. These are all really positive values. I think that shouldn’t be watered down by “but if you grow up to be different in a way one adult political tribe abhors, that one is not ok”.
I don’t know why in your last sentence you switched to “telling a 7 year old boy he is a girl”. That’s very different from what I said which was that a 7 year old might learn some people grow up to be different and that that is ok!
