Really beginner question: How is the trans community a threat to anyone?
Probably best to start with a trigger warning, as I will be covering molestation. Sadly, not the sort where moles are just doing their duties.
YouTube just served me this. (very much a trans-friendly link)
And I was basically left wondering who the hell feels threatened by others being themselves. I hope this will not come across as inappropriate from a nominally cishet male.
My background is hopefully not normal. At the age of 6, I was repeatedly involved in anal sex with a neighbour (his idea). Not to be outdone, a female cousin six years my elder babysitting me a year later introduced me to kinks that one should not know at 7 but would later inform my relationship choices in a less-than-ideal manner.
That would take another 23 years, but my first real relationship, in college, was with a woman whom I like to claim I lost my virginity to (so as to avoid having to bring any of this up) that I also ended up in discussions with about being a sperm donor for her and her wife years later.
After her, my year as a raver started. One learns very quickly not to assume a goddamn thing about anyone's sexuality or gender identity in that environment. It took two years in college to get to the point that I'd slept with more women than men, and just a few years ago, I started talking with a guy who I had to ask "are we flirting?" when our conversations felt more like what I was used to on intentional dates.
Hence "nominally."
So I have always been somewhat in orbit of the queer community without ever considering myself part of it. Indeed, a big reason I chose Beehaw was because inclusivity is just the sort of thing one should engage in.
But this video was a maddening experience (I mean, I totally agree with the presenter), given that I don't see who's threatened by the existence of the trans community. Unless you're pinning me down and forcing me to do things I don't want to do, what you do in your life is not my concern.
I again apologise for what is likely a very basic question, but I just don't get this. There are so many things to be concerned about in the world, and my god, I thought we'd gotten past petty shit like othering people. How my second wife was proudly bi and somewhat racist (first wife, same deal, minus the racism) was a confusing juxtaposition, but I was in a bit too deep by the time that became apparent.
After that divorce, I ended up with a coworker I didn't even realise was a lesbian (she'd say I turned her bi), so straight is simply not normal to me. How is this a standard assumption, and how the existence of trans people are an existential threat is baffling, unless we take the view that straight people have more kids, which is what capitalism needs to forever feed the growth beast.
Is it as simple at that? I'm going through some stuff currently that makes me ill-equipped to dive down the research rabbit hole, so I'm reaching out here in the hope of understanding without spending several hours getting angry.
In no particular order:
Organized Christianity needs original sin.
If people believed could achieve righteousness on their own, they wouldn't need a church. To keep people perpetually indebted, organized Christianity needs people to feel not just that they did something wrong, but that they are something wrong. Enter the self-appointed apostle Paul (don't get me started on that guy), telling you that every natural desire you have is evidence of your sinful nature. This is why the most widespread denominations heavily regulate sexuality and identity.
Patriarchy needs masculine superiority to be immutable.
Patriarchy doesn't say men deserve authority because they do better, but because they are better. A man is assumed to have a set of masculine virtues suited for authority, and so to claim that authority, a patriarch just needs to show up and remind people he’s a man. But what if a man could lack one of those masculine virtues (such as aggression)? And what if a person who looks male isn’t, or vice-versa? The more things a man could be, the harder a patriarch has to work to prove they're the "right kind" of man by flaunting their masculinity (see also: truck balls). And for women who gain privileges by sucking up to the right patriarchs, every stripe on the rainbow flag is yet another thing they have to prove they’re not. So punching down on “deviants” isn’t just a way to reassert one’s position in the hierarchy, it’s also revenge against those “deviants” for stealing or diluting the patriarch’s claim to his birthright.
The heteros are upseteros.
Heterosexual people are very accustomed to society and commercialism catering to their sexuality. Objectification is rampant. People are so accustomed to sexualizing anything on two legs that the mere mention of homosexuality has them vividly visualizing the act. Even devout religious people. Especially devout religious people. And that can be unpleasant if you’re not into homosexuality, or trigger a self-loathing spiral if you are but don’t want to admit it. This is why so many homophobic people make exceptions for whichever kinds of queerness they like to see in their porn, and others make exceptions for every kind of queerness except the ones they like in porn.
Fascists need a scapegoat
Fascism is a form of authoritarian ethnocentric ultranationalism based in a social-darwinist backdrop that promises mythical palingenesis if the weak and treacherous are purged. Fascism has deep ties to religion and patriarchy, but it is uniquely reliant on having a scapegoat or “other” to cast as treacherous, powerful, and responsible for the nation’s failures – after all, if there’s no scapegoat, then there’s no reason to grant power to a fascist dictator. Critically, that scapegoat must not actually be powerful, or else purging them would be a self-defeating endeavor. While fascists regularly change their formula to avoid categorization, they almost invariably target sexual minorities thanks to their disenfranchisement by religion and patriarchy.
Self-determination is an act of rebellion.
I saved this for last so I could end on a less depressing note. If you believe mankind is inherently evil (see also: original sin), then you also believe that giving people the power of self-determination is dangerous. I believe that art is the battlefield upon which the wars for the identity of a nation are fought, and America in particular has a long history with this battle. In a 1787 letter to his nephew, Thomas Jefferson wrote that morality is a construct by and for society, and that individuals should ignore peer pressure and trust their instincts when choosing their moral and religious beliefs. Jefferson was a Unitarian, a denomination later sadly but predictably deemed heretical. In the mid/late 1800s, the American transcendentalists spat absolute fire like Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” (a guide to radical self-acceptance and being a bad boy sugar daddy), Thoreau’s “Walden” (a guide to rejecting capitalism and living in a cabin thanks to your sugar daddy) and “Civil Disobedience” (a guide to big dick energy which would later inspire Ghandi), and Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass” (a guide to getting high in a field and realizing there’s nothing evil or gross about you). Many years later, this philosophy inspired works like Mary Oliver’s “Wild Geese” (a guide to punching me, specifically, right in the feels). The very concept that there’s nothing wrong with you and that only you get to decide who you are continues to be radical, dangerous, and completely unstoppable to this day.
Wow. Thank you for this insightful analysis.
Plenty of Christians do not believe in original sin. Many of us believe that all people are inherently good rather than inherently evil.