Hello, Elliot Page

[Eacaraxe]

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.

You used it because was a mainstream headline, otherwise you could have pointed to dozens of incidents involving trans men and staying entirely within the purview of the discussion. Do you know who the first trans person killed in a hate crime in the US was this year? Somehow, I doubt it.

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.

If you think the status of LGBTQ celebrities is ir-relevant, you have a fundamentally whacked perspective on the issue whether you're misdirecting from trans men or not.

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.

Is it an irrelevant deflection, or are you simply unaware the Folsom Street Fair is a public BDSM festival, and a major LGBTQ event, because leather subculture started in the gay community? It literally started because the SF municipal government weaponized the AIDS epidemic to crack down on Folsom Street's gay nightlife.

And this isn't about personal preference. This is about gatekeeping, lingering phobias, and peer pressure within the LGBTQ communities -- and perpetuating negative stereotypes.

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...Police violence is not the only form of discrimination and prejudice, believe it or not...

And therein lies the rub. Activism does not have a one-size-fits-all methodology, nor should it. Public policy and social goals must be identified, the response to activism monitored, and direct action tailored to best fit the achievement of those public policy and social goals. And, as policy and social goals are met and counter-action evolves, so too does the movement and its forms of direct action in order to continue meeting further policy and social goals in the most effective manner.

Different threat profiles from different potential perpetrators, and different goals for different groups with unique and individual needs, need different responses, end of story. And indeed, those change, and they have.

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.

I literally just did, but I find it rather important to single out T here as meth, weed, oxy, fentanyl, or coke aren't sine qua non for FtM hormone therapy.

That's disingenuous...Thus prohibition.

And again, we have a little political problem on our hands, given scheduling in the US isn't actually done by the relative harm of each product, but as a factor of who makes them and who takes them. This isn't an "if the system worked as intended you'd be right" issue, because to be frank "the system" in the US is working as intended. We're talking about a system in which weed and peyote are still schedule I, while cocaine and all those high-octane designer synthetic opioids tearing the country a new asshole are for some incredible reason schedule II. If you want no better example of this look no further than past enforcement and sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine.

It is by merit of its mere existence impossible to talk about drug scheduling in the US without discussion of systemic bigotry. This is the framework in which T is scheduled, and would you agree despite our differing arguments about the necessary cause of its scheduling, the sufficient cause is toxic masculinity?

You think the majority of people that identify as trans are all mega-celebrities?

No, that's the opposite of my point, there. Read the SIlveira op-ed piece I linked.

 

[Houseman]

Yes, cultural groups

??? Trans is a cultural group?

 

[Agema]

I literally just did, but I find it rather important to single out T here as meth, weed, oxy, fentanyl, or coke aren't sine qua non for FtM hormone therapy.

A lot of these drugs are necessary for people's proper medical care. Their proper medical care is also a right.

 

[SupahEwok]

??? Trans is a cultural group?

How are they not?

 

[Houseman]

How are they not?

No, I'm just surprised to hear you say it. You can choose to be a part of a cultural group or not. That sounds at odds with the people who say "it's not a choice".

 

[SupahEwok]

No, I'm just surprised to hear you say it. You can choose to be a part of a cultural group or not. That sounds at odds with the people who say "it's not a choice".

I'm not really sure how black people can choose to not be black, but you live your best life and I'll live mine.

 

[Houseman]

I'm not really sure how black people can choose to not be black, but you live your best life and I'll live mine.

That's not what culture means. Having black skin does not mean you share a culture with everyone else who has black skin.

"Hip-hop culture" is a culture that is commonly associated with black people, however. Is that what you meant? If so, are you saying that all black people are born with a love of hip-hop?

Or are you confusing "culture" with "ethnicity"?

 

[SupahEwok]

That's not what culture means. Having black skin does not mean you share a culture with everyone else who has black skin.

If government and business lists an aspect of you as a demographic and make decisions directed at you by that information, if you can meet a stranger of that demographic and have a pre-existing shared experience, if you consider your demographic a part of your identity, your demographic is a cultural group.

This can range from the general taxonomy of ethnicity, to the very specific taxonomy of a shared street.

I'm glad to see you broadening your horizons.

 

[Houseman]

If government and business lists an aspect of you as a demographic and make decisions directed at you by that information, if you can meet a stranger of that demographic and have a pre-existing shared experience, if you consider your demographic a part of your identity, your demographic is a cultural group.

This can range from the general taxonomy of ethnicity, to the very specific taxonomy of a shared street.

Where are you getting that definition from?

 

[SupahEwok]

Where are you getting that definition from?

My brain, which has mastered reasoning both inductive and deductive.

 

[Houseman]

My brain, which has mastered reasoning both inductive and deductive.

Oh, so it's just your made-up definition of a word. Okay then, carry on.

 

[Gordon_4]

Hey, can one of the mods maybe deep six this thread? Because as per fucking usual no train on these forums has brakes and we are off the fucking rails.

 

[SupahEwok]

Oh, so it's just your made-up definition of a word.

I hate to break it to you, but they're all made up.

 

[Trunkage]

Hey, can one of the mods maybe deep six this thread? Because as per fucking usual no train in these forums has brakes and we are off the fucking rails.

But it’s really important that those people who say that definitely aren’t against trans people keep telling us how one particular trans person is awful.... so we should be worried about all of them. And they are mentally sick. Or get worried about using pronouns. Or get annoyed that there is an announcement about the transition.

Don’t stop them otherwise you’ve ruined free speech

 

[Silvanus]

You used it because was a mainstream headline, otherwise you could have pointed to dozens of incidents involving trans men and staying entirely within the purview of the discussion. Do you know who the first trans person killed in a hate crime in the US was this year? Somehow, I doubt it.

I could've done. As I've said, it's irrelevant to my point. My point was not limited to trans men.

If you think the status of LGBTQ celebrities is ir-relevant, you have a fundamentally whacked perspective on the issue whether you're misdirecting from trans men or not.

Of course, I don't believe that's irrelevant, and any halfway coherent reading of my post wouldn't take that from it. But the fact is that being in the public eye doesn't somehow exempt somebody from threats of violence, stigma, or professional damage from coming out. It may lessen it; it doesn't grant immunity. And it's another old right-wing trope that minority status disproportionately helps people in the professional world.

Is it an irrelevant deflection, or are you simply unaware the Folsom Street Fair is a public BDSM festival, and a major LGBTQ event, because leather subculture started in the gay community? It literally started because the SF municipal government weaponized the AIDS epidemic to crack down on Folsom Street's gay nightlife.

And this isn't about personal preference. This is about gatekeeping, lingering phobias, and peer pressure within the LGBTQ communities -- and perpetuating negative stereotypes.

Thanks for the unnecessary little history lesson. You were the one who brought up personal preference, with the (misdirected and incorrect) accusation that I'm treating the queer community as a "monolith" because I opined that BDSM subculture followers should be able to do what they want without external censure. The only person I see here proscribing behaviour which members of the queer community should and shouldn't take part in is you.

And therein lies the rub. Activism does not have a one-size-fits-all methodology, nor should it. Public policy and social goals must be identified, the response to activism monitored, and direct action tailored to best fit the achievement of those public policy and social goals. And, as policy and social goals are met and counter-action evolves, so too does the movement and its forms of direct action in order to continue meeting further policy and social goals in the most effective manner.

Different threat profiles from different potential perpetrators, and different goals for different groups with unique and individual needs, need different responses, end of story. And indeed, those change, and they have.

And, by extension, why is it more appropriate to demand LGBTQ people are the ones who need to change their behaviour when faced with discrimination and harassment? Y'can't just say, "it's different". You have to explain why that difference justifies such a shift of responsibility from perpetrator to victim.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I could've done. As I've said, it's irrelevant to my point. My point was not limited to trans men.

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'. You did what you did, and it's completely relevant to my point. Your "...not limited to trans men..." in a thread about a trans man, in response to posts about trans men's issues, speaks to exactly the point I'm making. If you lack capacity to speak about trans men and trans men's issues, in a thread about trans men, in response to a post about trans men's issues, without bringing up trans women, you are exactly the sort of person I initially criticized as guilty of erasure.

Of course, I don't believe that's irrelevant, and any halfway coherent reading of my post wouldn't take that from it. But the fact is that being in the public eye doesn't somehow exempt somebody from threats of violence, stigma, or professional damage from coming out. It may lessen it; it doesn't grant immunity.

Did you even read that op-ed I posted?

And it's another old right-wing trope that minority status disproportionately helps people in the professional world.

And here you are still trying to poison the well. You're not fooling anyone.

Thanks for the unnecessary little history lesson.

Which was apparently entirely necessary as you didn't mention one word about BDSM or even make an attempt to differentiate two communities (even though one is aesthetically and culturally derived from the other) until I brought it up, when I was talking about a BDSM/LGBTQ event to begin with. Rather strikes me if you were all that conversant about the issue, the first thing you might have said is "hold up, let's actually talk about FSF and what it is exactly first..." rather than leaping straight to ad homs.

...because I opined that BDSM subculture followers should be able to do what they want without external censure.

In response to a point I made that LGBTQ community members should be able to do what they want without internal pressure or censure. Because it's not monolithic.

You have to explain why that difference justifies such a shift of responsibility from perpetrator to victim.

Ah yes, wagons must be circled and we must pretend the LGBTQ community is above reproach and beyond criticism, and that internal prejudices and phobias, peer pressure, and gatekeeping don't exist at all, let alone in a form which harms members of its own community. Because "right-wing tropes", and criticism must be negated via bad-faith argumentation tactics at any and all cost. I'd be asking you the same question, in cases in which perpetrator and victim are members of the same supposed community.

 

[Silvanus]

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'. You did what you did, and it's completely relevant to my point. Your "...not limited to trans men..." in a thread about a trans man, in response to posts about trans men's issues, speaks to exactly the point I'm making. If you lack capacity to speak about trans men and trans men's issues, in a thread about trans men, in response to a post about trans men's issues, without bringing up trans women, you are exactly the sort of person I initially criticized as guilty of erasure.

"Lack the capacity to talk about it", because I wasn't making a point that was limited to trans men specifically. This particular deflection is actually pretty pathetic. I mean, you yourself posted a link to an article primarily about Caitlyn Jenner, which by this tortured logic is the same kind of "erasure".

Did you even read that op-ed I posted?

The one about Caitlyn Jenner? Yep; didn't change a damn thing about this conversation. The author even says she's being courageous and "beyond brave", and that the article isn't a criticism of her. This is in marked contrast with you, who insinuated that trans people themselves in the public eye come out for attention.

Which was apparently entirely necessary as you didn't mention one word about BDSM or even make an attempt to differentiate two communities (even though one is aesthetically and culturally derived from the other) until I brought it up, when I was talking about a BDSM/LGBTQ event to begin with. Rather strikes me if you were all that conversant about the issue, the first thing you might have said is "hold up, let's actually talk about FSF and what it is exactly first..." rather than leaping straight to ad homs.

The jab about ad-homs, from somebody who furiously insults and denigrates other users as a first recourse, is a bit rich. The point I was making, again, doesn't need to be limited specificially to this event or this subculture. You brought it up in response to a wider point; why would I get sucked into a more specific conversation about BDSM?

In response to a point I made that LGBTQ community members should be able to do what they want without internal pressure or censure. Because it's not monolithic.

This is a cosy little rewrite. Your original argument on Folsom Street Fair wasn't about how people shouldn't apply "internal pressure or censure"; it was about how its very existence "serves to perpetuate negative stereotypes of the non-heterosexual community".

Nothing about pressure or censure. Everything about how the community should drop a street fair to avoid external ire. Pretty textbook external pressure & censure.

Ah yes, wagons must be circled and we must pretend the LGBTQ community is above reproach and beyond criticism, and that internal prejudices and phobias, peer pressure, and gatekeeping don't exist at all, let alone in a form which harms members of its own community. Because "right-wing tropes", and criticism must be negated via bad-faith argumentation tactics at any and all cost. I'd be asking you the same question, in cases in which perpetrator and victim are members of the same supposed community.

Nobody's pretending anybody is "above reproach", and this is all another verbose deflection. Unless you think the very existence of Folsom Street Fair or the BDSM subculture deserves "reproach and criticism"-- because of course "internal prejudices and phobias, peer pressure, and gatekeeping" played... zero part in the original tract that brought up FSF.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Elliot Page, 'Juno' star, shares transgender identity | CNN

Meet Elliot Page. On Tuesday, the Oscar-nominated star of movies like "Juno" and "X-Men: Days of Future Past" shared with fans that they are transgender and identify as non-binary, a term used to describe a person whose gender identity is neither man nor woman.

www.cnn.com

So I was once asked why do I make a big deal about Transitioning. I ask, why do people make a big deal about birth? A new person in the world is a new person in the world.

Welcome, Elliot. Do well, be happy, live your life.

I agree. Pretty much any holiday that results in annually obligatory, compensatory efforts for the mere act of existing should be treated as passive events, where a simply “Happy _______ day!” will do. There are enough pressures and stresses in life that warrant greater attention, and everyone should be entitled to their own me time and neutral holidays.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I agree. Pretty much any holiday that results in annually obligatory, compensatory efforts for the mere act of existing should be treated as passive events, where a simply “Happy _______ day!” will do. There are enough pressures and stresses in life that warrant greater attention, and everyone should be entitled to their own me time and neutral holidays.

I'd make an exception for persons, people or cultures that other persons, people or cultures have tried to get rid of. Some people go in for "Happy you failed to kill me" days.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Engage with my question and quit slinging mud: Why are you so opposed to taking Yaniv at her word that she is trans?

First. I need to apologize to you. I've often said that one of the most important things for the people to do on this forum is not start insulting each other personally and I just did that to you. I'm sorry, I should not have insulted you.

Now, don't start your conversation with me with you saying, "Don't be 'That Guy'", and then act as if you have the high ground when you had no argument. You added that question after I had already replied to your comment. As to why not take Yaniv at his word? Do I really need to explain why someone who claims to be trans but still has a penis and has had numerous girls say he's asked for pictures of them and he's been involved in lots of other scummy stuff with the ball waxing incidents, is untrustworthy?