Hello, Elliot Page
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
I doubt it was trans people.
Sorry, how the hell has anything I've said "pushed trans men out of the conversation"? This is a simplistic deflection.
Page, and Cox, will have less risk to them than your average trans person. They'll also have increased that risk by coming out. That latter is minimised, and the issue done an injustice, by the reductionist suggestion that it's just motivated by profit.
Of course, it's another right-wing trope that being a minority helps people inordinately in the professional world.
Yet that's the basis of this argument you're putting forward. "We're not in the Stonewall days any more", "the trendline is down".... these statements about it being better now are then used to arrive at a conclusion that amounts to tone-policing LGBTQ people as a method of dealing with homophobia.
Yet I doubt the conclusion you've reached is that it's incumbent on the victim to change their behaviour.
I've never seen someone need a Snickers so badly. Maybe Alex Jones when he told that woman to get off the phone.
Last edited:
To expand on this...
My assistant was telling me how a friend of hers at (Private) school was aboriginal, the only one at the school. So... they plastered her all over billboards and buses for the last decade. She didn’t get a real choice in it because schools retain all photos they take of students. She didn’t get anything for it. All so the school could make money
Its like The Boys. Capitalism commodify everything. Trans, gay, immigrants, hatred for immigrants, racism, kids and grannies fucking. Even you. It’s just what Capitalism does. Hating someone because Capitalism now makes them gross is a bit ridiculous
Well, you're the one who linked a damn article about Laverne Cox as opposed to any number of trans men celebrities. Now, I'm sure you'll happily and merrily handwave this as "but I said in the public eye!". How about Buck Angel, Lucas Silveira, Aydian Dowling, or Ian Harvie? Remember when Chaz Bono was on DWTS?
You're the one that apparently can't talk about trans men without bringing trans women up. Great job proving my point about erasure, boyo.
End of story. Oh, just never mind that little three-word combo word I used, "post-fame Cox". Because you're deliberately trying to skew my argument to turn it into a "right wing trope", thereby poisoning the well. You see, the problem here is we're not talking about "the professional world" writ large, we're talking about celebrity, media presence, media representation, and by far most important, profit motive in media. Because you're still trying to pretend these issues aren't interconnected, interdependent, and symbiotic in terms of fulfilling the self-interest of all associated parties while leaving those without the privilege of celebrity out to dry.
One of those guys you didn't mention earlier but could have? He wrote a damn op-ed about this just few years ago. You might find it interesting.
Why We Need to Talk About Caitlyn Jenner
It's a wonderful day to celebrate trans folks. With that said, I think it's very important that this start a conversation around differing narratives of...
Yes, they also happen to be statements of fact.
Has it occurred to that perhaps the LGBTQ community isn't an ideological or behavioral monolith, and there are LGBTQ persons out there who feel put off and excluded by their own supposed community's behavior? I personally know more LGBTQ's that dislike pride parades, festivals, and clubs for the conduct that goes on at some of them yet still feel peer pressured to turn out, than I do that wholeheartedly participate in them. Not to mention the fact they struggle against negative stereotypes the community itself perpetuates, damn near everyday when they just want to live their damn lives. Especially people who are bisexual, who also have to contend with biphobia and gatekeeping within the community that's supposed to be for them.
Has it occurred to you, ever, that shit is harmful to people in their own communities, not from without but from within? But never mind me, saying the quiet part out loud. I'll spare you my story about one of my oldest, good friends who was sexually abused at a pride parade by being pressured into a BDSM scene against his consent (or more specifically, a parade after-party), and then gaslit about it for months because "this is our community, this is what we do, people like us have to stick together".
Oh no, for the sake of maintaining appearances I must just be slinging right-wing tropes to tone police, to blame the LGBTQ community for harms committed upon them by straight people. Because I dare question the status quo, I must be wrongbadthinkman.
Pray tell, when in the history of a movement that started with a riot (against corrupt cops, no less), was the last time cops declared a pride parade a riot, kettled, and gassed the hell out of them? Well, that is when they're not also saying "black lives matter".
Last edited:
I used that example because it was very recently in the news, and because my point isn't limited to trans men alone-- coming out increases risk. Obviously.
Once again: minimising the issues trans people face. If the only relevant thing to you is that trans people in the public eye are at less risk than average joe-public trans people, then you're either failing to recognise or failing to acknowledge the increased risk that coming out brings onto somebody.
And yes, this narrative is steeped in right-wing tropes.
Firstly, that story isn't relevant to the discussion we're having. Its a little bit gross that you'd invoke it here in an effort to lend your argument emotional weight.
Secondly, my argument doesn't rely on the community being a monolith, or homogeneous. Individual people can like or dislike what they want. I'm queer and I would be singularly uninterested in stuff like that BDSM public celebration thing. This is also an irrelevant deflection.
My argument rests solely on the principle that its not incumbent on a victim of prejudice or violence to adapt their behaviour in order to avoid the threat. They can if they want; lots of people do for the sake of personal safety. But they sure as hell shouldn't be subject to external moralising, which has the effect of shifting the responsibility from the perpetrator to the victim.
Police violence is not the only form of discrimination and prejudice, believe it or not, and there's not a 1-to-1 match up between the issues the two communities face.
Take conversion therapy, an entire industry of sanctioned child abuse taking place in the US. Or the incidence of parental disownment of gay children & teenagers. These issues don't have direct analogies in other communities.
How bloody dismissive to imply that since Pride parades don't face police suppression in the US (though, of course, they do in other countries frequently) then the threats aren't that big a deal.
Okay, you can take that argument, but it needs to be applied consistently as a general anti-prohibition argument, not as an "arbitrary exception for this drug here" argument.
That's disingenuous. The prescribing system attempts to ensure that potentially dangerous substances aren't left free to float around society, encourage responsible use, and in particular to ensure that users have been educated in appropriate use for their and other people's safety. Usually this is sufficient because people do not have a motivation to take most drugs, because all they're likely to get off them is adverse effects. But clearly some drugs have fun or beneficial effects: benzodiazepines, opioids, amphetamines and related stimulants, ketamine, androgens etc. Thus prohibition.
If I may piggyback off of Eacaraxe's sentiments here... Something I've been interested in asking everyone here is why is it that when everyone was discussing Yaniv that everyone refered to them as "she"?
We all know he's not trans but is a disgusting, grifting, asshole that is only using the trans movement to grift and yet everyone was still referring to him as "she". Might there not be some kind of issue in your movement when you refuse to denounce such a person?
We all know he's not trans but is a disgusting, grifting, asshole that is only using the trans movement to grift and yet everyone was still referring to him as "she". Might there not be some kind of issue in your movement when you refuse to denounce such a person?
The two are not mutually exclusive. You can avoid rejecting them as trans while still rejecting them as a terrible person.
The same identifier as every trans person: their say-so.
It's not like there's trans certification.
You think the majority of people that identify as trans are all mega-celebrities? I mean, that's just nuts. You do know that the majority of them are not super rich, and possibly just work some YT channel, or just publicly identify as trans on social media, without buckets of money. So this puts them at risk, and they don't have the private army of security that you seem to think is synonymous with being a public trans person. "In the public eye" simply means they are open and public about their identity, while still living a regular life, or at least trying to. You know, unless they get hunted down and killed in the street by transphobic assholes, for the crime of simply being alive and daring to breath the same air as them.
Or you could just not be That Guy about it.
Please do not insult other users
Oh don't think I didn't notice your hypocrite ass throwing Eacaraxe under the bus when he started talking about how capitalism is exploiting the trans movement. Guess socialism doesn't mater as much to you as you claim when it means you have to actually have rules for what makes someone trans or not. No no no, who cares if it leads to molestation of women by a grifter so long as "I got mine!"
Just because someone is a socialist doesn't obligate me to like them as a person or approve of everything they do. Where you got the idea otherwise, I'll never know. And if this kind of reversal is the best you can come up with, it's because you're being That Guy.
Serious question: why are you so opposed to taking Yaniv at her word that she's trans? It is possible to be both trans and a shitty person.
Last edited:
Oh yes, you are SO less confrontational by not even having any argument and only being able muster the gradeschool, "You're, That Guy, lul. Owned!" You have nothing to offer. You are intellectually bankrupt.
Engage with my question and quit slinging mud: Why are you so opposed to taking Yaniv at her word that she is trans?
Presumably for the same reason you don't trust Breitbart as a reliable source of information.
Yes, cultural groups should need government paperwork, certification, and wear public identification for proper designation.
