An article about Caitlyn Jenner and Aydian Dowling, a trans man, who you conveniently seem to have left out of your cunning analysis, written by whom I wonder? I mentioned the selfsame author in a quite specific list, of a certain demographic entirely relevant to the conversation...I wonder which demographic that might be...
Unbelievable. Even in your rebuttal to my argument you're erasing trans men, you still erase trans men and then have the absolute gall to act self-righteous.
Considering this entire tangent was a result of your hyper-focus on a single link I used, in the context of a wider point that was
in no way solely or specifically about trans men alone, I'm just going to leave this particular line here. The "erasure" accusation was, from the start, a well-poisoning tactic of your own.
Well, you clearly at least parsed the article for things that agreed with you. Little wonder then, you seemed to have missed the author's point about centering the conversation about trans people around celebrity...
Nope, that point was obvious. It also doesn't vindicate your line of accusation against Page himself. The author of the piece has quite specifically targeted his criticism at the media circus surrounding it, and was at pains not to denigrate the individuals themselves who've come out.
As a first recourse? No, not at all, really. It's only when people come back at me with cherry-picked responses that ignore the point I was actually making to build straw men of my posts to attack sidebars, supplementary evidence, and secondary points in order to deflect from my real arguments and then proceed to erroneously accuse me of derailing, that I consider it game on. I won't be held responsible for the forum conduct of a chosen few here, whose etiquette and epistemology are an affront to the principle of charity.
You tend to resort, from the very beginning of almost every forum dispute you engage in, to scorn, derision, sarcasm, and derogatory comments. It's not just a rejoinder when someone else has engaged in foul play. The default setting appears to be
intense aggression.
Do you not believe this sort of behavior to be potentially harmful to others in the community who have no wish to participate in it or identify with it? Because that's kind of my whole-ass point here.
I consider internal peer pressure and intra-community sniping and censure to be harmful to people within the community. I've experienced it first-hand myself, thank you. I do not consider the existence of a gated (as in, kids can't just wander in) subculture street fair to be perpetuating negative stereotypes of the gay community. You wanna go, you go. You don't, you don't, and the fair doesn't reflect on you.
Well, except you, who's trying to poison the well and deflect away from criticism of the LGBTQ movement. Even while simultaneously acting as a case example in real time of the chief criticism levied, no less.
Ah, a prime instance of progressive discussion: a commentator telling a queer person that they're a poor representative of their community. Yeah, no right-wing tropes here, no siree.
No political movement should be above criticism. Nor should it refuse to engage in collective introspection and adapt its tactics to changing times. End of story.
If the tactics involve shutting down conventions & fairs so as to avoid the ire of straight people, then I don't consider them very good tactics. I consider them shrinking-violet nonsense.
