First it was people of color. Then it was marriage across races. Then it was women having the right to vote. The the homosexuals. And now, here we are, it's those dangerous trans. It's always masked as an "assault on truth" tho inn'it?
I personally don't really think racism/homophobia are that comparable. Being trans is something that requires other people to participate in. The former situations do not. In order to believe that transgender women are women, you need to believe that woman does not mean adult human female. That's where a lot of the fundamental disagreements arise from.
Maybe if the US didn't have a long history of ignoring intersex gene configurations, and letting doctors assign gender to infants with ambiguous gonads, including gender assignment surgery.
We already know that gender needs to be adjusted medically, say in cases of precocious puberty. This is applying the same techniques to persons who identify as someone other than they present.
And yes, we'd reduce the problem if human societies didn't treat men and women so disparately, and freak out when little Joey is undressing Barbie.
In most cases it doesn't matter what you believe though. The bare minimum of not being aggressive and transphobic would be great for a lot of people.
Sure, I don't want anyone to feel aggressed. But I think things get tricky when you start talking about topics like trans women in female sports, in female jails, etc
That's true.
I personally try and avoid any discussion about that, so I don't have to take a stance.
I have nothing against Trans people, but I recognize that it could be a problem in sports. Fortunately I don't care about sports, so I don't have to figure out if it's a problem or not.
For jails, maybe start with a prison that's respecting the persons identification and if (and only if) trouble arises, you could move them elsewhere.
And gendered bathrooms just seem stupid imo. Do mixed bathrooms with real walls (like we often do here) instead of shitty stalls and put urinals in a separate walled off section towards the back or something.
The entire, "adult human female," argument is BS. Trans women are clearly both adults and humans, there's no debate around that. It's the female part that people get hung up on. It's the assumption that gender is defined by sex, which isn't how humans think about things on an intuitive level.
When you see a person with all the outward characters of a woman, most people, especially most conservatives, simply label that person in their head as a woman. In most societies we rarely see each others genitals, and often can't fully make out certain markers of woman or manhood due to clothes or masks, worn for practical or cultural reasons. In fact, most apparel isn't inherently gendered outside of cultural context, as dresses, pants, makeup, and countless other fashionable displays have been gendered very differently through history, even in the English speaking world. When you categorize someone as a woman in almost all circumstances, you use "female" to denote gender, not sex.
If you recognize the empirical reality of how humans use the word female, you realize that sex is almost irrelevant for most uses of the term. Trans women get recognized as female all the time by people, and because female is both a term to denote gender and to denote sex, insisting those people are only male once you learn their, "sex," is not only a rude thing to do, but also objectively wrong. Trans women are often undeniably adult human females, so pretending the definition is incompatible with Trans women is a lie.
The thing you might have a problem with is people that don't pass being referred to as female, but this isn't an absolute truth either. Tons of cis women identify as women and are of the female sex, but don't get gendered as female by many people. The same is true for some cis men, and while there are less of them due to social stigma against femininity, male failing cis men do exist. Almost no one insists that butch women are men for their male gender presentation, or that femboys are women for female presentation. Conservatives might demonize these people as, "abnormal freaks," and people that gatekeep trans identities might get very uncomfortable, but I've yet to see them insist that GNC folks are the gender they most present.
As a trans person who often doesn't pass as my gender identity, it's frustrating when others complain about people like me inconveniencing them. I'm sorry interacting with me challenges your contradictory worldview as I know critical thought takes effort. I want to pass to everyone, but not because I want to put anyone's mind at ease. I want to look like a woman because it makes me happy, while feeling like a man makes me miserable.
I'm sorry that the unavoidable reality of cultural change makes you unhappy, but there has always been change and will always be change. All manner of changes in our lives are more extreme right now. The change might be more drastic than at any point in history, but no one chooses where or when they are born. It is wise to make the most of the hand you're dealt instead of demanding a reroll than cannot happen. You can change neither the past or present, but you can shape the future.
It's impossible to actually rid the world of trans people, so the tension between the outdated gender ideology of the past and material reality will always exist. Instead of attempting an impossible task or burying your head in the sand, find a consistent worldview and learn to live with us. Everyone should learn to peacefully exist with benign difference in others.
Trans women are clearly both adults and humans, there’s no debate around that. It’s the female part that people get hung up on. It’s the assumption that gender is defined by sex, which isn’t how humans think about things on an intuitive level.
The "not being female" part is exactly what holds people up about calling them woman.
When you categorize someone as a woman in almost all circumstances, you use “female” to denote gender, not sex.
I don't believe this is true at all. It would be weird to call women "females" in most circumstances. Your entire long comment pretty much serves to argue that female doesn't mean what it actually means. It reads like a bunch of woo woo to me.
Sex is very important in human relationships. It's how we procreate, which is the basis for the evolution of human sexuality. That much cannot be denied. Until very recently, there was no distinction between gender in sex. And don't bring up some random old tribe having a third gender hundreds of years ago as proof, you can find an cultures who believed nearly anything and exceptions don't prove the rule.
I believe that you can be a feminine man, dress how you want, and play whatever role you want, but that does not mean you are a female/woman. I would not try to challenge anyone to their face but don't be surprised why I don't truly believe that they are a woman.
Why don't you read up on the medical consensus and make an effort to understand gender dysphoria? If you really care, you would participate in the conversation with a genuine interest and understanding. It seems you are more invested in confirming your biases instead. The medical research has evolved way past the surface level analysis you will find on Lemmy or Reddit.
Medical consensus on how to treat a specific mental illness is not relevant in this conversation about definitions.
The medical consensus is just as much about our understanding of the symptoms underlying issues as much as the treatment. The issue is your "belief" system of what falls in the categories you described. I'll ask you how you define the female gender. Give us a working definition and let's see where we disagree.
Ok. You're free to dismiss uncomfortable ideas as woo woo and cling to what feels right rather than what's true till the day you die. So long as you don't become bitter and lash out as the world passes you by, have fun.
It's always masked as an "assault on truth" tho inn'it?
Regarding everything you listed? No.
Your comment is both a gross misrepresentation of US history and a simplification of a complex contested topic across the world.
Why don't you provide a counterargument instead of whining. The truth is fascists need an out group to maintain power. That outgroup is always picked from some type of marginalized group. The issue is republicans are running out of those out-groups more and more, but the strategy is virtually the same. If you go back in time and analyze the rhetoric it's virtually identical.
The fact that you're equalizing US Republicans with fascists speaks magnitude of how shallow and undeveloped your position is.
And that's coming from me as a European, with absolutely no vested interest in US internal affairs.
The fact that you've blustered twice without providing any actual points whatsoever speaks magnitudes of how shallow and undeveloped your position is.
While I do believe the other commenter is making a gross simplification of the reasons the average conservative does what they do, there is genuine merit in recognizing the relationship between US Republicans (or conservative movements and groups in general) and facism. The ideological cudgels they use are based in the same foundations, utilize the same rhetoric, and are often intended by their progenators to reach the same end goals. If you are a European, you should have some interest in this - after all, the US of A is not the only country struggling with facist rhetoric being normalized in its culture.
Thanks. I personally don't like throwing the "f" word around too much. It's been losing it's meaning in the past years. But we have to have a way to analyze the rhetoric through a past lense.
The thing is, here in the US the transnational white power movement / white Christian nationalist movement features all the indicators of fascism (there are multiple lists. Choose one. I like Umberto Eco's). We could argue that it's incidentally fascist, that it's developed these features as symptoms in the process of coming out as an autocratic, identity-focused culture. But that doesn't change that it is dangerous and is stripping away civil rights from the people of the United States, and is engaging in efforts to neuter the already meager democratic features of the US, in order to hedge out the other party.
So whether or not the Republican party is a fascist party, whether or not some states have fascist elements, they are behaving in those ways historic fascist regimes have that cause harm. And as such it is doing harm to their respective publics.
And that means our attention should be focused not on what to call them, but how to stop the harm.
I never directly stated they are completely equivalent. I said the rhetorical devices they use are the same. This is hard to refute. I'm an American and I also happen to live in Europe (I was born and grew up in Italy) so I know plenty about Fascism. Why don't you provide an actual counterargument?
I think you underestimate the prevalence of the transnational white power movement in the Republican Party. We currently have the right-wing extremist factions, MAGAs and the Christian Nationalists, and then we have the old guard. I think Mitt Romney is the least right-wing throughout the federal government, and he still believes in policies that will drive the US toward fascism and autocracy. And when he wasn't in politics, he was engaging in hedge-fund shenanigans that depended on regulatory capture.
So yes, every last one of them bought the ticket to ride this train, and are financed by the plutocrats that laid the rails.
First it was people of color. Then it was marriage across races. Then it was women having the right to vote. The the homosexuals. And now, here we are, it's those dangerous trans. It's always masked as an "assault on truth" tho inn'it?
I personally don't really think racism/homophobia are that comparable. Being trans is something that requires other people to participate in. The former situations do not. In order to believe that transgender women are women, you need to believe that woman does not mean adult human female. That's where a lot of the fundamental disagreements arise from.
Maybe if the US didn't have a long history of ignoring intersex gene configurations, and letting doctors assign gender to infants with ambiguous gonads, including gender assignment surgery.
We already know that gender needs to be adjusted medically, say in cases of precocious puberty. This is applying the same techniques to persons who identify as someone other than they present.
And yes, we'd reduce the problem if human societies didn't treat men and women so disparately, and freak out when little Joey is undressing Barbie.
In most cases it doesn't matter what you believe though. The bare minimum of not being aggressive and transphobic would be great for a lot of people.
Sure, I don't want anyone to feel aggressed. But I think things get tricky when you start talking about topics like trans women in female sports, in female jails, etc
That's true.
I personally try and avoid any discussion about that, so I don't have to take a stance.
I have nothing against Trans people, but I recognize that it could be a problem in sports. Fortunately I don't care about sports, so I don't have to figure out if it's a problem or not.
For jails, maybe start with a prison that's respecting the persons identification and if (and only if) trouble arises, you could move them elsewhere.
And gendered bathrooms just seem stupid imo. Do mixed bathrooms with real walls (like we often do here) instead of shitty stalls and put urinals in a separate walled off section towards the back or something.
The entire, "adult human female," argument is BS. Trans women are clearly both adults and humans, there's no debate around that. It's the female part that people get hung up on. It's the assumption that gender is defined by sex, which isn't how humans think about things on an intuitive level.
When you see a person with all the outward characters of a woman, most people, especially most conservatives, simply label that person in their head as a woman. In most societies we rarely see each others genitals, and often can't fully make out certain markers of woman or manhood due to clothes or masks, worn for practical or cultural reasons. In fact, most apparel isn't inherently gendered outside of cultural context, as dresses, pants, makeup, and countless other fashionable displays have been gendered very differently through history, even in the English speaking world. When you categorize someone as a woman in almost all circumstances, you use "female" to denote gender, not sex.
If you recognize the empirical reality of how humans use the word female, you realize that sex is almost irrelevant for most uses of the term. Trans women get recognized as female all the time by people, and because female is both a term to denote gender and to denote sex, insisting those people are only male once you learn their, "sex," is not only a rude thing to do, but also objectively wrong. Trans women are often undeniably adult human females, so pretending the definition is incompatible with Trans women is a lie.
The thing you might have a problem with is people that don't pass being referred to as female, but this isn't an absolute truth either. Tons of cis women identify as women and are of the female sex, but don't get gendered as female by many people. The same is true for some cis men, and while there are less of them due to social stigma against femininity, male failing cis men do exist. Almost no one insists that butch women are men for their male gender presentation, or that femboys are women for female presentation. Conservatives might demonize these people as, "abnormal freaks," and people that gatekeep trans identities might get very uncomfortable, but I've yet to see them insist that GNC folks are the gender they most present.
As a trans person who often doesn't pass as my gender identity, it's frustrating when others complain about people like me inconveniencing them. I'm sorry interacting with me challenges your contradictory worldview as I know critical thought takes effort. I want to pass to everyone, but not because I want to put anyone's mind at ease. I want to look like a woman because it makes me happy, while feeling like a man makes me miserable.
I'm sorry that the unavoidable reality of cultural change makes you unhappy, but there has always been change and will always be change. All manner of changes in our lives are more extreme right now. The change might be more drastic than at any point in history, but no one chooses where or when they are born. It is wise to make the most of the hand you're dealt instead of demanding a reroll than cannot happen. You can change neither the past or present, but you can shape the future.
It's impossible to actually rid the world of trans people, so the tension between the outdated gender ideology of the past and material reality will always exist. Instead of attempting an impossible task or burying your head in the sand, find a consistent worldview and learn to live with us. Everyone should learn to peacefully exist with benign difference in others.
The "not being female" part is exactly what holds people up about calling them woman.
I don't believe this is true at all. It would be weird to call women "females" in most circumstances. Your entire long comment pretty much serves to argue that female doesn't mean what it actually means. It reads like a bunch of woo woo to me.
Sex is very important in human relationships. It's how we procreate, which is the basis for the evolution of human sexuality. That much cannot be denied. Until very recently, there was no distinction between gender in sex. And don't bring up some random old tribe having a third gender hundreds of years ago as proof, you can find an cultures who believed nearly anything and exceptions don't prove the rule.
I believe that you can be a feminine man, dress how you want, and play whatever role you want, but that does not mean you are a female/woman. I would not try to challenge anyone to their face but don't be surprised why I don't truly believe that they are a woman.
Why don't you read up on the medical consensus and make an effort to understand gender dysphoria? If you really care, you would participate in the conversation with a genuine interest and understanding. It seems you are more invested in confirming your biases instead. The medical research has evolved way past the surface level analysis you will find on Lemmy or Reddit.
Medical consensus on how to treat a specific mental illness is not relevant in this conversation about definitions.
The medical consensus is just as much about our understanding of the symptoms underlying issues as much as the treatment. The issue is your "belief" system of what falls in the categories you described. I'll ask you how you define the female gender. Give us a working definition and let's see where we disagree.
Ok. You're free to dismiss uncomfortable ideas as woo woo and cling to what feels right rather than what's true till the day you die. So long as you don't become bitter and lash out as the world passes you by, have fun.
Regarding everything you listed? No.
Your comment is both a gross misrepresentation of US history and a simplification of a complex contested topic across the world.
Why don't you provide a counterargument instead of whining. The truth is fascists need an out group to maintain power. That outgroup is always picked from some type of marginalized group. The issue is republicans are running out of those out-groups more and more, but the strategy is virtually the same. If you go back in time and analyze the rhetoric it's virtually identical.
The fact that you're equalizing US Republicans with fascists speaks magnitude of how shallow and undeveloped your position is.
And that's coming from me as a European, with absolutely no vested interest in US internal affairs.
The fact that you've blustered twice without providing any actual points whatsoever speaks magnitudes of how shallow and undeveloped your position is.
While I do believe the other commenter is making a gross simplification of the reasons the average conservative does what they do, there is genuine merit in recognizing the relationship between US Republicans (or conservative movements and groups in general) and facism. The ideological cudgels they use are based in the same foundations, utilize the same rhetoric, and are often intended by their progenators to reach the same end goals. If you are a European, you should have some interest in this - after all, the US of A is not the only country struggling with facist rhetoric being normalized in its culture.
Thanks. I personally don't like throwing the "f" word around too much. It's been losing it's meaning in the past years. But we have to have a way to analyze the rhetoric through a past lense.
The thing is, here in the US the transnational white power movement / white Christian nationalist movement features all the indicators of fascism (there are multiple lists. Choose one. I like Umberto Eco's). We could argue that it's incidentally fascist, that it's developed these features as symptoms in the process of coming out as an autocratic, identity-focused culture. But that doesn't change that it is dangerous and is stripping away civil rights from the people of the United States, and is engaging in efforts to neuter the already meager democratic features of the US, in order to hedge out the other party.
So whether or not the Republican party is a fascist party, whether or not some states have fascist elements, they are behaving in those ways historic fascist regimes have that cause harm. And as such it is doing harm to their respective publics.
And that means our attention should be focused not on what to call them, but how to stop the harm.
I never directly stated they are completely equivalent. I said the rhetorical devices they use are the same. This is hard to refute. I'm an American and I also happen to live in Europe (I was born and grew up in Italy) so I know plenty about Fascism. Why don't you provide an actual counterargument?
I think you underestimate the prevalence of the transnational white power movement in the Republican Party. We currently have the right-wing extremist factions, MAGAs and the Christian Nationalists, and then we have the old guard. I think Mitt Romney is the least right-wing throughout the federal government, and he still believes in policies that will drive the US toward fascism and autocracy. And when he wasn't in politics, he was engaging in hedge-fund shenanigans that depended on regulatory capture.
So yes, every last one of them bought the ticket to ride this train, and are financed by the plutocrats that laid the rails.