Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
We are talking about a western author broadcasting on a western platform in a western language, often directly in response to other westerners or western ideas of transsexuality. Makes it pretty clear who the target audience and culture is.
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of westerners don’t believe in transexuality either.
Hey, we’re talking about one right now!
This is what I mean by thinking your culture is the best and all others should follow. Do you think Rowling would be justified if she tweeted in Thai? Lol. If not, then she isn’t unjustified for engaging with westerners.
Try to understand your way of life is not the only, or even the best, way of life.
No, they believe that transsexuals are heathen abominations that should be stripped of all human rights and dignity. There is a difference.
Try to understand that your way of life should not get in the way of others trying to enjoy theirs when it doesn’t harm other people.
Some of them, sure. But some just disagree with the notion that trans-X are identical to their cis counterparts.
I totally agree.
It’s never been about proving trans and cis folks of the same gender are “identical”, no one is arguing that, obviously there are some physical, biological differences. Differences that trans folks are painfully aware of, and that take a lot of time and effort to mitigate for many them to feel like themselves.
It’s just about being accepted as, being seen, and talked to as the gender of your choosing.
People like Rowling who argue against the existence or the rights of trans folks overwhelmingly do so out of ignorance, fear, or simply malice. It’s not a philosophical question, it’s not up for debate whether trans people “exist”, if you don’t believe in them then you’re just objectively, provably, scientifically wrong.
And if you agree they exist and still want to make their lives miserable, then you’re just an asshole.
Speak for yourself, I see people arguing it all the time.
Yeah, just like if you don’t believe homosexuality is a mental disorder in 1952 then you are “scientifically wrong.” Soft sciences aren’t ‘objective’ like hard sciences, which is why they are currently having a reproducibility crisis.
Do you believe in otherkin? I’m sure they would react identically as you towards people who don’t see them the way they want to be seen.
Bringing up otherkin is plain what-about-ism, so it proves nothing. So much for some second-class Republicans who tried to push the narrative that schools now add special sandboxes instead of toilets to accomodate them. Reproducibility crisis that is an utter joke, especially when you defend the science-denialist position. All major medical organizations recognize the existence and validity of the trans experience. The one’s who don’t are the ones who are usually the science deniers on a range of topics. Scratching homosexuality (like after Kinsey studies) and trans identity from mental disorders was not a politically motivated decision, but reflected development of scientific thought about sex and gender, for instance 1600 biologists condemned Trumps idea that he could define biological sex on the basis of chromosomes and external genitalia at birth, Scientific American has published that biological sex is a spectrum, and that trans girls belong to high school women sports because there is no scientific basis for exclusion. It also deemed theories like “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” as pseudoscience. So are you reading actual medical organizations or Dawkins Institute shit, because some of them are militant anti-trans agitators, not advocates of science. It is clear from what you write that you read all the wrong things and formed an ill opinion. 4) And most important, cis and trans might not be identical but neither are people within trans and cis categories. Trans people aren’t identical to their birth gender either. And in the end of the day it doesn’t even matter, respecting a trans personality has nothing to do with their biological sex, binary or not, fluid or not. It is an ideological stance (fascism) to not respect people who are not cis and/or straight. Even if it is a hairy, 200-lib pre-HRT bulky trans woman it is still a woman in the eyes of the law, like it or not. Source: Scientific American Trans girls belong to female Sports https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/ Scientific American visualizing sex as a spectrum https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ 1600 biologists condemns Trump anti-transgender proposal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46067559 American Psychological Organization advocates for trans youth https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/07/advocating-transgender-nonbinary-youths World Helath professional Association advocates for transgender adults and youth https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc And as of the last point, if you are out to misgender trans people on the basis of your dogmatic chromosomal determinism and half-baked scientism, here is what happened in the past: “if part of the belief necessarily will result in the violation of the dignity of others, that is a component of the belief, rather than something separate, and will be relevant to determining whether the belief is a protected philosophical belief,” which is from https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/06/29/not-a-nazi-but-forstater-v-cgd-europe/ .
Yeah I’m not gonna waste more time trying to change a transphobe’s mind, peace