|
GlyphGryph posted:Respond by pointing out that the fair outcome IS the one you want and that its already literally the status quo. (Unless you think it isn't, I guess!) This is what i mean when i say we shouldn't have the debate. Because there's no debate to be had since the fair outcome has already been established for decades. And then pivot to showing how ridiculously horrible and fascist the right is being about trans people in general. And if they bring up the sports again you repeat yourself that there is no debate it's a solved problem. you keep redirecting because if you let them get a foot in the door with the sports issue the right takes it and pushes for the other poo poo and you can't let them look reasonable by conceding that the sports debate has merit. you said it yourself, the status quo is already the solution
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:
Right. The "trans people in sports" issue was carefully developed and workshopped by specific right wing political agents to be a wedge issue and drive right-wing anger. It didn't just pop up "naturally," it's an engineered issue intended to split the left apart and feed the right-wing rage bigot machine every time it gets mentioned. The only real counters are exposure (more open trans people being open, bravely), open allyship (trans rights are human rights), shaming and deplatforming the bigots, and re-directing discussion towards stronger issues for discussion ("trans people deserve the same rights everyone else does. Like the right to safe schools, not schools filled with open carry guns.")
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You are not winning the hearts and minds of people who want to start rolling back rights to create second class citizenship as a precursor to further persecution. They are not fighting in the marketplace of ideas and if you think that is the battleground well, you're wrong. They do not care about fairness and the best counter is to force that none of this is about fairness. Yeah it’s not about them. It’s about the not really certain folks. It’s not about the Ft Lauderdale hot tub sales looking rear end in a top hat. To flip groups on issues coming from the outside group you only need like a quarter of the group to be willing to speak openly on and for the issue publicly. That’s the target, the folks you can turn into people willing to do that. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Our capability to be lovely will never cease to amaze me. I think a lot of that was a racist dogwhistle but yeah I knew about the stereotypes (hey let’s poo poo on the parent that stuck around…) but never heard about the sterilization thing. Good god. Oh it absolutely was spun into the Reagan-era welfare queen myth, which was entirely racial in nature and framing, but this was an adaptation of a previously-existing stereotype based more of female immorality/depravity than novel creation. And since I brought it up, Ochs wasn't exaggerating for effect in his song. Well into the 20th century single mothers, particularly if minors, were sterilized as they having become pregnant was seen by eugenicists as a sign of irreparable moral failure, rather than, you know, maybe being raped or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:So if what people already believe and have physically in that lump of fat in their heads is: “Sports should be fair”, how can this issue be framed to attach trans rights to that and show that trans rights fulfills and embodies: “sports should be fair” in a manner that is also human and personal? They're already fair. We did the experiment. The Olympics have allowed trans athletes to compete since 2004, and none of the predictions that the right wingers still claim would happen (because they're ignorant of this) have come to pass. All you need to do to win any "debate" on the topic is ask people what they think would happen if the Olympics passed those rules today, then after they make whatever wrong predictions, tell them those rules were implemented almost 20 years ago and everything was fine
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Yeah it’s not about them. It’s about the not really certain folks. It’s not about the Ft Lauderdale hot tub sales looking rear end in a top hat. Yeah, this subforum and the sort of discussions had about trans people in sports is part of the reason I have been able to reach some family members and get them on the other side of the fence. Yeah, trans people shouldn't have to argue for their existence. But if I had just shut my family down and said "trans women are women, end of story, you're a hateful bigot" well I guess I could enjoy losing them to the chud narrative. When outlets like the NYT are JAQ'ing off about trans people, then you know that normies are going to be absorbing that. Trans allies need to be equipped to reach those people and explain to them why the information they're getting is wrong and why trans people in sports is a complete non-issue. I was able to do this with my MIL just the other day because of poo poo that got posted in this very thread. To shut down honest discussion among people, none of whom disagree about trans folks' right to exist, is doing a disservice to them. e: and all due respect, this conversation is really more for potential allies than anyone else. Cis allies should really be doing the bulk of the work explaining this stuff to other receptive cis people, that's called being an ally. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah, I don’t see why you wouldn’t at least mention the hormone requirements that are in place, and the effect of those hormone requirements, if somebody is talking to you about trans women in sports and doesn’t seem to understand those things. We’re all incredibly familiar with it but it’s really, really not intuitive for people who don’t know or talk to trans people regularly. I don’t expect anybody to volunteer this but I would be shocked if there wasn’t somebody in this discussion who opposed trans participation before learning those things. That's a fair question. I suppose I'd lean on, "there aren't enough trans athletes to matter", which is true and a consequence of the way society views trans people. I'd also retort that we need more research, but also that children's sports, which is the wedge issue people seem to care about, it should not matter at all whether or not a person is trans because children are no where near the outlier group where genetics matters. Children's sports are about inclusiveness and team building, there's already so much unfairness baked into it that hormones are really not part of the equation. EDIT: All I'm saying is that litigating which sports favor essential hormone groups, how much they favor them, and how you even test for that (given that not all trans people have gone through HRT and some have had HRT as children, which complicates things) is very advanced when the public is worried about whether or not trans girls can play soccer. We should focus our effort on the soccer if anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Yeah, this subforum and the sort of discussions had about trans people in sports is part of the reason I have been able to reach some family members and get them on the other side of the fence. Yeah, trans people shouldn't have to argue for their existence. But if I had just shut my family down and said "trans women are women, end of story, you're a hateful bigot" well I guess I could enjoy losing them to the chud narrative. When outlets like the NYT are JAQ'ing off about trans people, then you know that normies are going to be absorbing that. Trans allies need to be equipped to reach those people and explain to them why the information they're getting is wrong and why trans people in sports is a complete non-issue. I was able to do this with my MIL just the other day because of poo poo that got posted in this very thread. I think there's a lot of daylight between refusing to debate with someone and just calling them a bigot. You can still reach out to people and attempt to explain to them why trans right are human rights, but that doesn't require debating with them over it. Like I said, I think a lot of the confusion here stems from an unnecessarily broad definition of "debate". Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:What is this? Transphobia with more words.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Transphobia with more words.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:That's a fair question. I suppose I'd lean on, "there aren't enough trans athletes to matter", which is true and a consequence of the way society views trans people. I'd also retort that we need more research, but also that children's sports, which is the wedge issue people seem to care about, it should not matter at all whether or not a person is trans because children are no where near the outlier group where genetics matters. Children's sports are about inclusiveness and team building, there's already so much unfairness baked into it that hormones are really not part of the equation. I think “there aren’t enough to matter” is a bad argument because it undoes itself as soon as a trans athlete has success. I think you have to stick with “science has shown trans athletes that have gone through HRT do not have an advantage” and point to the lack of trans Olympic medalists as evidence. Then when an individual does have success it’s just a statistical thing that had to happen eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think there's a lot of daylight between refusing to debate with someone and just calling them a bigot. You can still reach out to people and attempt to explain to them why trans right are human rights, but that doesn't require debating with them over it. ? Yes it's called debate and discussion for a reason. It is a "debate" with my MIL because she got a bunch of bad news sources. I had to "debate" her by showing her that her sources were bad and I had to explain to her why, because she isn't just going to take my word for it. I mean I guess I could just as easily say I discussed it with her but it certainly began as an adversarial conversation. I'm not sure I see much of a de facto difference in the language used here. cat botherer posted:Just a sixer though, the same as what I'll get for this post. Protip for all the new DND mods: when someone posts an egregious bigoted screed, make sure to use "placeholder" in the initial six hour probe so that everyone knows that a more appropriate punishment is on the way. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/markmobility/status/1668641171097239553
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
is.......is supporting donald trump boring now for these people? like to tie into the previous conversation i'm pretty sure there are junior high basketball games with more people than are in miami supporting trump right now
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
To have a lot of people show up you have to organize it and all the people who did that organization are no longer available
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I think “there aren’t enough to matter” is a bad argument because it undoes itself as soon as a trans athlete has success. I think you have to stick with “science has shown trans athletes that have gone through HRT do not have an advantage” and point to the lack of trans Olympic medalists as evidence. Then when an individual does have success it’s just a statistical thing that had to happen eventually. The issue is that those are the same argument to the bigots though. They think the goal is to just let anyone claim to be anything and have gender no longer matter. They think that if society accepts that, then why wouldn't the best male athletes that didn't make the team just say "I'm a woman now" and compete on the women's league, prohibiting cis-women from having a place to play sports. I don't think they are concerned about actual trans people (because according to the bigots, they don't exist anyway), they are concerned that men will just pretend to be trans for the medals. They likely don't realize that it's not that simple and there are already rules in place to prevent that kind of thing, but just pointing to a lack of trans domination is not enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:? Yes it's called debate and discussion for a reason. It is a "debate" with my MIL because she got a bunch of bad news sources. I had to "debate" her by showing her that her sources were bad and I had to explain to her why, because she isn't just going to take my word for it. I mean I guess I could just as easily say I discussed it with her but it certainly began as an adversarial conversation. Like I said a few posts back, my personal definition of debate is that both sides should be at least open to the idea that their opponent could be correct. Maybe that's not anyone else's definition, and that's fine! But when someone says that the issue of trans rights should be open for debate, as this conversation started, that says to me that they are open to ceding ground on the issue. To use what might be a lovely analogy, I think it's like a sports game. Both teams come together and agree that whoever scores the most points will get the trophy. That's fine and good. But then in this scenario, you have one team saying that if they win, they get to murder the other team's goalie. You're probably not going to want to play with that team, or at the very least your goalie might have some qualms with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
To be fair to Trump, a lot more supporters did eventually show up at the courthouse. It ended up being a couple hundred. There were also another hundred or so counter protesters. The combination of Florida and Trump produce the weirdest people on both the pro- and anti- sides. https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1668670019172020229
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Like I said a few posts back, my personal definition of debate is that both sides should be at least open to the idea that their opponent could be correct. Maybe that's not anyone else's definition, and that's fine! But when someone says that the issue of trans rights should be open for debate, as this conversation started, that says to me that they are open to ceding ground on the issue. That's an important precursor to deciding if you want to use time talking to someone, but debate in the age of social media involves more people reading the debate than directly participating in it, and there are minds that can be changed in the audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:The issue is that those are the same argument to the bigots though. They think the goal is to just let anyone claim to be anything and have gender no longer matter. They think that if society accepts that, then why wouldn't the best male athletes that didn't make the team just say "I'm a woman now" and compete on the women's league, prohibiting cis-women from having a place to play sports. I don't think they are concerned about actual trans people (because according to the bigots, they don't exist anyway), they are concerned that men will just pretend to be trans for the medals. I think bringing up the HRT requirements is a good counter to that, though. You’re not going to get through to the folks that are using trans athletes as an excuse to hate trans people, but there are more reasonable people who don’t have all the facts on trans athletes and you can win some of them over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I think bringing up the HRT requirements is a good counter to that, though. You’re not going to get through to the folks that are using trans athletes as an excuse to hate trans people, but there are more reasonable people who don’t have all the facts on trans athletes and you can win some of them over. Agreed, that is the most important component to include in my opinion. Too many people have their opinions on this from south park or fox news and they are both insanely inaccurate on what kind of rules the various sports leagues and orgs have put in place. Start there, if you're interested in engaging.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think there's a lot of daylight between refusing to debate with someone and just calling them a bigot. You can still reach out to people and attempt to explain to them why trans right are human rights, but that doesn't require debating with them over it. Trans rights are human rights does not work as an argument for the sports issue because not getting to play in a specific league isn't a human right. More than any other social context I can think of, sports are an activity where discrimination and segregation are socially accepted, if not considered to be outright necessary to be (ironically enough) inclusive. We block people based on their age, on their gender, where they live, their weight, their disability status, etc. If someone erroneously believes there is a legitimate fairness issue no different from any of the other reasons we discriminate in sports, the only way to resolve that is to knock down the false belief. Attacking it by calling it discrimination will not get you anywhere because discrimination is widely accepted as a good and necessary thing in sports for a wide variety of reasons. So from that person's perspective arguing from the basis that it's a right parses as either arguing that no form of segregation is acceptable in sports, which is facially absurd, or that being trans makes you exempt from the rules everyone else is subject to. People who think trans people are pedos or groomers are not reachable, I agree with you. But I wholly believe for every one of those people there's three more who don't know poo poo about gently caress to whom the sports issue makes intuitive sense because they don't know any better. Those people are reachable, and if we're actively hostile to at least attempting to make an attempt to explain to those people that this is actually a solved problem and there isn't a fundamental fairness issue then you are ceding those people to the right wing by refusing to engage them where they are instead of where you are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:To have a lot of people show up you have to organize it and all the people who did that organization are no longer available I'd disagree with that, a lot of that organization is busy on anti-trans protests, and shutting down as many school meetings / libraries / lgbt events as possible. That poo poo is working so a whole lot of their energy is on that right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:To be fair to Trump, a lot more supporters did eventually show up at the courthouse. It ended up being a couple hundred.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Like I said a few posts back, my personal definition of debate is that both sides should be at least open to the idea that their opponent could be correct. Maybe that's not anyone else's definition, and that's fine! But when someone says that the issue of trans rights should be open for debate, as this conversation started, that says to me that they are open to ceding ground on the issue. Yeah that's a fair definition and I don't think there's any real disagreement here, I think I'm just working off a more casual definition of debate. I of course am not considering any arguments against transpersons valid or considering the possibility that they may be right. What I am doing is trying to understand what person A might have seen or heard to make them think the things they do, and how I can attack those from a rational position. And I hope it is obvious that I am not talking about engaging with chuds who actively hate trans people and have openly bigoted views. My MIL for example had no issues with the concept of trans people or problems with their existence, she just had concerns about sports/prisons because of the bad media she consumes, and it was helpful for me to understand where those bad faith arguments come from and what information is being twisted to support those bad faith arguments. These are the people that you can actually win. The amount of frothing hateful bigots are hopefully a vocal minority, so the more confused normies you can sway, the better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
I'll add to my previous post that the needle on gay rights didn't get moved because the bigots changed their mind. It got moved because the people who weren't engaged came to understand the bigots were full of poo poo. We far far too often fail to appreciate the people who engage with topics and are well versed in these topics are comparatively few and far between. The person advocating bigoted views isn't the one that needs to be reached, it's the far more numerous bystander.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Yeah, this subforum and the sort of discussions had about trans people in sports is part of the reason I have been able to reach some family members and get them on the other side of the fence. Yeah, trans people shouldn't have to argue for their existence. But if I had just shut my family down and said "trans women are women, end of story, you're a hateful bigot" well I guess I could enjoy losing them to the chud narrative. When outlets like the NYT are JAQ'ing off about trans people, then you know that normies are going to be absorbing that. Trans allies need to be equipped to reach those people and explain to them why the information they're getting is wrong and why trans people in sports is a complete non-issue. I was able to do this with my MIL just the other day because of poo poo that got posted in this very thread. Frame this post. It's perfect. Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I think “there aren’t enough to matter” is a bad argument because it undoes itself as soon as a trans athlete has success. I think you have to stick with “science has shown trans athletes that have gone through HRT do not have an advantage” and point to the lack of trans Olympic medalists as evidence. Then when an individual does have success it’s just a statistical thing that had to happen eventually. Yeah, I agree “there aren’t enough to matter” fails as soon as a single trans athlete wins an Olympic medal or becomes otherwise successful. I like the "we don't make tall people compete in a separate basketball league" argument, along with pointing out rules like the IOCs about length of time on hormones, etc. because challenging that does get down to the "are trans women women/are trans men?" question that is really what sits at the bottom of it 99% of the time. Then, if you're actually having that discussion and they actually want to talk and not pound the table, you can talk about a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome, and what makes her a woman over a trans woman, etc. etc. Fister Roboto posted:Like I said a few posts back, my personal definition of debate is that both sides should be at least open to the idea that their opponent could be correct. Maybe that's not anyone else's definition, and that's fine! But when someone says that the issue of trans rights should be open for debate, as this conversation started, that says to me that they are open to ceding ground on the issue. In a just world I should be able to say "it isn't my job to educate you" and sometimes and in some situations I do that, but if I did that every time I would have convinced far fewer people, and the situation would be worse off. Call it a debate or call it something else idk. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Yeah that's a fair definition and I don't think there's any real disagreement here, I think I'm just working off a more casual definition of debate. I of course am not considering any arguments against transpersons valid or considering the possibility that they may be right. What I am doing is trying to understand what person A might have seen or heard to make them think the things they do, and how I can attack those from a rational position. And I hope it is obvious that I am not talking about engaging with chuds who actively hate trans people and have openly bigoted views. My MIL for example had no issues with the concept of trans people or problems with their existence, she just had concerns about sports/prisons because of the bad media she consumes, and it was helpful for me to understand where those bad faith arguments come from and what information is being twisted to support those bad faith arguments. These are the people that you can actually win. The amount of frothing hateful bigots are hopefully a vocal minority, so the more confused normies you can sway, the better. Yeah I think the thing is that you can still engage and debate with that sort of person, but it has to come with the precondition that fundamental human rights are not up for debate. From my own experience, my grandfather sometimes makes some, uh, colorful remarks about certain minority people at family gatherings. We've tried debating with him, but it quickly became clear that he wasn't listening at all, and we were just giving him what he wanted in the form of negative attention. So instead, if that comes up again, we just tell him that we're not going to talk about that. It's not up for debate. Fortunately he seems to be getting the hint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Yeah, this subforum and the sort of discussions had about trans people in sports is part of the reason I have been able to reach some family members and get them on the other side of the fence. Yeah, trans people shouldn't have to argue for their existence. But if I had just shut my family down and said "trans women are women, end of story, you're a hateful bigot" well I guess I could enjoy losing them to the chud narrative. When outlets like the NYT are JAQ'ing off about trans people, then you know that normies are going to be absorbing that. Trans allies need to be equipped to reach those people and explain to them why the information they're getting is wrong and why trans people in sports is a complete non-issue. I was able to do this with my MIL just the other day because of poo poo that got posted in this very thread. It's great that people are expected to justify themselves in order to make sure that we don't risk "losing people" to the "chud narrative". I'm going to be honest I am heartily sick of having to put up with vaguely poo poo bheaviour from people who should know better and having to re-litigate time and time again about how much it sucks being trans because of how much poltical ill will is focussed on making your life poo poo. If I were to turn around to those people and say "justify your existence as you are" then they'd have a conniption and it seems so manifestly unfair to have to have people argue about others rights. Is it? Because it sure seems like a lot of the trans voices raised in this thread are, in fact, pissed about this. From a purely practical standpoint I know that it requires a degree of tact to make people rethink their ideas and being polite can be part of that, but it's very galling that we have to re-litigate another group of peoples right to exist, seemingly every decade or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It's great that people are expected to justify themselves in order to make sure that we don't risk "losing people" to the "chud narrative". I'm going to be honest I am heartily sick of having to put up with vaguely poo poo bheaviour from people who should know better and having to re-litigate time and time again about how much it sucks being trans because of how much poltical ill will is focussed on making your life poo poo. If I were to turn around to those people and say "justify your existence as you are" then they'd have a conniption and it seems so manifestly unfair to have to have people argue about others rights. I was specifically talking about work that allies should be doing and I am not expecting you to do the hard work. That's my point. I'm not asking you as a trans person to tolerate or argue or litigate your own existence. I am explicitly stating that I, as someone who considers myself an ally, will reach out to people who are receptive to good faith arguments and convince them why these bad faith narratives are wrong. If you have some kind of problem with that I'm not even sure what to say, because I can't make it any more clear than that, and if you think I shouldn't be doing that, then I respectfully disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
I don't think people are even talking about the same debate. Half of this seems to be about literally debating people here on SA and changing their minds or talking with your parents about current issues. The other half seem to be telling about "The Debate" as in the current public discourse where one of the major responses so far has been to agree with the made up concerns of the right and start instituting exclusionary rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The other half seem to be telling about "The Debate" as in the current public discourse where one of the major responses so far has been to agree with the made up concerns of the right and start instituting exclusionary rules. Who has had this response and where have they done this? The only places where I can recall anything of this sort being done are places where the far right has solid political control over the process, so its not really a "response". Or are you arguing that the current normal HRT standards are agreeing with the made up concerns of the right and bad? Even if that was a position someone out there is taking, how is it particularly relevant to the conversation here were literally no one is advocating that position?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Which is part of why the right wing is focusing on anti-trans bigotry; there are a lot fewer trans people, so fewer people know anyone who is trans, so it's easier to push the bigotry. Its also to make drat sure those trans people that can stay far the hell in the closet so most people will continue to not know any trans people. You all probably know more trans people than you think, you just don't know they're trans because they'd rather not make themselves a big ol' target for people to aim at if they can avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I was specifically talking about work that allies should be doing and I am not expecting you to do the hard work. That's my point. I'm not asking you as a trans person to tolerate or argue or litigate your own existence. I am explicitly stating that I, as someone who considers myself an ally, will reach out to people who are receptive to good faith arguments and convince them why these bad faith narratives are wrong. I'm not trans myself, just going out with someone who is. I've had this sort of chat with people and it's just so frustrating to not be able to respond to things with something less than the verbal equivalent of a tank. I know that there is a practical side to thinks, but I think being told "you don't know anything about this and are being a bit of a poo poo" should be a way to respond to stuff. In the same way that people working retail should be allowed to respond to rudeness by telling someone to get hosed. Ultimately I understand it in practicality, but we shouldn't ever aspire to just be pragmatic about things like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Which is part of why the right wing is focusing on anti-trans bigotry; there are a lot fewer trans people, so fewer people know anyone who is trans, so it's easier to push the bigotry. Also, importantly, they're trying to intimidate trans people into hiding and not revealing it, as well as prevent younger people from knowing enough to potentially realize that they might be trans. It's not too different from how gay people were forced by legal and cultural oppression to keep their identities private, with individuals facing severe shame and consequences if it were to become known that they were gay. Fister Roboto posted:Like I said a few posts back, my personal definition of debate is that both sides should be at least open to the idea that their opponent could be correct. Maybe that's not anyone else's definition, and that's fine! But when someone says that the issue of trans rights should be open for debate, as this conversation started, that says to me that they are open to ceding ground on the issue. I think it's more important to be open to the idea that the other side had a reasonable and comprehensible path to reaching the views they did. Rather than approaching it from the perspective that the other side could be correct, approach it from the perspective that they could be correct if the underlying assumptions they're basing their views on were correct. From there, it's a matter of understanding those underlying views and where they came from. It doesn't really matter whether you think trans rights should be up for debate, because the fact of the matter is that they are up for debate - and the pro-rights side is losing that debate in a number of states. It is absolutely essential to counter the propaganda and work to convince people who are unsure or confused, because otherwise you're just ceding ground to the transphobes who are happy to debate against trans rights as many times as they need to in order to get those rights overturned and abolished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'm not trans myself, just going out with someone who is. I've had this sort of chat with people and it's just so frustrating to not be able to respond to things with something less than the verbal equivalent of a tank. I mean yeah I get all that, I wish it were that easy. But it's not, and being able to discuss this stuff in here is helpful for anyone who wants to be a better ally or who may be unsure of things themselves and may be too embarrassed to ask. When we can have these conversations in this kind of environment where outright bigots can be excluded from the conversation by moderation, it can be really helpful. Gumball Gumption posted:I don't think people are even talking about the same debate. Half of this seems to be about literally debating people here on SA and changing their minds or talking with your parents about current issues. The other half seem to be telling about "The Debate" as in the current public discourse where one of the major responses so far has been to agree with the made up concerns of the right and start instituting exclusionary rules. I've had to skim a bit but has bolded really been happening throughout this conversation? As far as I can tell, outside of the one bigot who got probed, people have mostly been talking about how to address the many points in bad faith arguments that can be attacked with the actual facts of the matters at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Also, importantly, they're trying to intimidate trans people into hiding and not revealing it, as well as prevent younger people from knowing enough to potentially realize that they might be trans. It's not too different from how gay people were forced by legal and cultural oppression to keep their identities private, with individuals facing severe shame and consequences if it were to become known that they were gay. But there is no debate in the anti-trans states. They're just using their political power to crush trans people. And even if there was, what's the solution? Debate harder? What specific messages should people be saying to convince the anti-trans state legislators to stop? Were Jim Crow laws made because the pro-freedom side lost a debate? No. The southern states used their political, economic, and physical power to intimidate and crush the newly freed black people. e: and to repeat myself, you absolutely can try to convince the people who are unsure or confused. But that by no means requires that you should be willing to debate the issue of trans rights. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Were Jim Crow laws made because the pro-freedom side lost a debate? No. The southern states used their political, economic, and physical power to intimidate and crush the newly freed black people. There very specifically was a debate, over how long the South should be held under military occupation after the Civil War and how much effort should be expended by the federal government in securing rights for Freedmen. It was only after the occupation was lifted that Jim Crow became a reality, and even then it wasn't all at once - Plessy v. Ferguson wasn't decided until 1896. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:There very specifically was a debate, over how long the South should be held under military occupation after the Civil War and how much effort should be expended by the federal government in securing rights for Freedmen. It was only after the occupation was lifted that Jim Crow became a reality, and even then it wasn't all at once - Plessy v. Ferguson wasn't decided until 1896. Was that the sole cause of Jim Crow though? Of course not. There were also a shitload of lynchings and klan terrorism and coerced servitude and coups that drove black people out of local governments. It was not just a matter of losing a debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:But there is no debate in the anti-trans states. They're just using their political power to crush trans people. And even if there was, what's the solution? Debate harder? What specific messages should people be saying to convince the anti-trans state legislators to stop? I don't think the existence of a debate implies that you can persuade your opponents to switch sides with a short monologue in the style of the 1999-2006 political drama The West Wing. In any case, it is less about convincing the car dealers in the state legislature who are trying to mandate genital inspections, and more about convincing people who aren't very politically engaged that the car dealers in the state legislature want to mandate genital inspections. Fister Roboto posted:Were Jim Crow laws made because the pro-freedom side lost a debate? No. The southern states used their political, economic, and physical power to intimidate and crush the newly freed black people. Jim Crow laws were made because the pro-freedom side lost a debate, over whether the southern states should be kept under military occupation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:48
|
|