|
Spazzle posted:Why have we collectively decided that some going through a sex change is ok, but someone who wants to be a wolf is fair game for ridicule? Over a century of medical knowledge, for starters.
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:I am legitimately trying to understand subcultures that range from amusing to baffling. It's easy to poke fun at someone that identifies as a day-glo horse, but these are evidently real people asserting apparent claims. I agree with the claim of an unclear agenda. I don't really understand the endgame for the multiple systems and the like. Some seem to want greater representation, in truth, I can't name a work of media that prominently features a demiromantic nonbinary (I would add more qualifiers here, but I am trying to take this seriously and a common gag seems to be pile on these qualifiers) character. You should stop thinking that people who don't claim they have the gender they were assigned have anything to do with people who think they're a horse or whatever. That would be a good first step.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Do most transsexuals have an improved overall quality of life? I thought that they are discriminated against and are often targets of lots of crime. So you don't know anything about this topic, but don't let that stop you from concern trolling. edit: Yes, srs and medical transition both improve quality of life and have been found to be medically necessary for transgender people seeking it. Trans people also are discriminated against. Someone saying that trans people shouldn't transition because they'll be discriminated against is much like saying gay people shouldn't come out because they'll be discriminated against. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Mukip posted:A caterpillar "transitions" into a butterfly; it was one thing and then it changed state and became something else. A biological male who believes he should be a female can undergo gender reassignment surgery, but he's still a biological male except his genitals have been mutilated into the broad semblance of an orifice. He has not transitioned into a new state of being; he has only attempted to ape a semblance of it. Except medical science and more importantly trans people themselves have decided that transition is the best approach. If you have some philosophical qualms about it, or just think it's icky, that's your prerogative, but to act like it's the same thing as teenagers pretending to be wolves or whatever just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. PT6A and Mercury_Storm had the patience to explain the details better than I did.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Mukip posted:Well, this report suggests that post-op transexuals have an increased risk of suicide: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939 Cool let's look at what their findings were: quote:Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group. So trans people have a higher risk of suicide than people who aren't trans. This we know because, surprise, living in a society that is very discriminatory against you isn't healthy. The report doesn't link it causally to srs as you seem to be implying. Read that conclusion once again: they're not advocating "stop doing srs," they're advocating "perform srs and follow-up care." I'm also interested to hear if you have some alternative therapy that no one has heard of.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The really offensive part is when people claim oppression based on others not recognizing that they're a dragon, or a fox or an angel. That's legitimately harmful to groups, like trans people, who face actual oppression and violence. I agree it's really offensive and is harmful, but I'd suggest that people who would discriminate against transgender people because of the existence of some teenager who thinks they're a fox are...ignorant, at best, and more likely just looking for another excuse to be bigots. Fox angel people aren't the ones out there trying to discriminate against transgender people or stir up bigotry against them (edit: as far as I know, it's not a group I pay a lot of attention towards); on the other hand, people who are actively trying to discriminate against people invariably bring those people up, though I don't believe that if otherkin didn't exist there would be fewer anti-trans bigots. I guess my point is that personally I feel bemused pity towards one group and contempt against the other. Otherkin provide a tool that bigots can wield, but it's still the bigot who's the one doing the actual oppression. Popular Thug Drink posted:That's generous. I was assuming it was a blanket term used to refer to leftists or people the speaker generally wanted to insult, but wasn't able to think of a more clever or original phrase. Zeitgueist posted:I'm specifically referring to folks who have complained about "Tumblr/SJW poo poo" in the past, citing fringe folks, who inevitably have issues with fairly mainstream opinions on bigotry and transgendered people. This doesn't apply to everyone. Agreed. You don't have to look far, at all, to see people slinging "tumblr/sjw poo poo" at people whenever the topic of transgender people is brought up. In fact I'm certain I've seen it applied more to transgender people, issues important to minority groups, leftists, etc., then I've seen it applied to otherkin. The existence of some escapist kid has gently caress all to do with actual lgbt or racial issues, and I've only ever seen it brought up as a smokescreen for someone's bigotry. At this point I just mentally replace it with "librul/pc" and that's never steered me wrong. It's like in the 90s when someone concerned with global warming would be accused of being a Gaia-worshiping neopagan or something. a medical mystery posted:I do think it's super amusing that hateful individuals tend to justify their lovely opinions on the basis of angsty teenagers who don't know any better and ironically get triggered into hilarious angry vitriol by the mere suggestion they might have privilege  You see it a lot among younger
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:That's fair, this whole discussion is about identifying ourselves after all so definition really is at the crux of the issue. What I'm really looking for is someone that exists outside of the sphere of jibbering internet culture to be speaking on aporagender, etc. But failing that, some indication that demiromantics are a group that should receive greater inclusivity overall. For your first point: you'd probably have to have decent journal access, or else find some fairly obscure conference papers if you're looking at things like aporagender. Assuming any academic work's been done on that at all. I'd caution you against throwing every term related to sex or gender you aren't familiar with into the same pile, though (not that you're necessarily doing that). Assuming there's any work on that at all, as beepo pointed out. I'm not familiar with it or that term myself. For your second, look at people whose lives are affected by bigotry in a material sense: it impacts their mental and physical health, their employment and marriage opportunities, etc. These are people it might be nice to be inclusive towards. Like, "inclusivity" isn't a very well-defined goal in and of itself - of whom are you trying to be inclusive, and to what end? Any book or film of less than infinite length is going to include some sorts of people and exclude others, so you have to prioritize, and have a reason for those prioritizations. Personally, I think it would be cool if more movies, tv shows, etc. had characters who were transgender but were presented as just you know, people, instead of caricatures. It took a while for gay people to achieve even the barest sliver of this sort of representation and there's still a longway to go. (acknowledging, of course, that those are two different issues).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:Aside: This is actually something I wrangled with for a while. The character in question is a major side character. The motivation was nothing more than "I see few transgender characters in this genre, perhaps I will write one." So nothing would really change if this trait weren't there. I absolutely agree that the best way is to present such a character as being normal and not call attention to this. But, if I never call attention to that character trait then it never gets brought up, and I'm off the opinion that it doesn't matter what my notes say about the character, if its not on paper it doesn't count. Which is also not to say I have a scene wherein the character declares "Look at my genitals! I think I'd prefer another option!" Personally I think that's totally fine and is a legit way of going about writing the character. I'd encourage you to listen to and read about trans people's first-hand stories in order to see how it could come up without having them walk onstage wearing a t-shirt reading "I am transgender," though you probably already know that's important. Good for you for including transgender representation! Here's another (clumsily metaphoric) way to think of the whole "what level of inclusivity should I include" question that sidesteps the whole issue of validity: imagine that you're in the early 1960's, and you're writing a book, tv show, etc. It's pretty easy to see why including a black character would be a laudable goal, but including an Amish character would have less social import. natetimm posted:It remind me a lot more of religion than anythng else. They have their sacred cows, their chosen people, etc. Who is "they"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't think anyone should give any credence to claims that "oh everyone on our side who is bad is actually just a plant from the opposition". On the other hand, it does happen, and it's been verified.. The whole #endfathersday thing was started as a 4chan prank, then picked up by people who used it to bash all feminists. Here's another article about this stuff, and there's a twitter hashtag associated with exposing trolls. For example, NWS http://i.imgur.com/zlsysiR.jpg?1 Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:Also getting paranoid and thinking that every person in your movement with differing opinions is a false flag operation is a really bad idea. Even if there are trolls, it seems like that mentality is going to lead to everyone calling each other secret 4chan people as soon as a disagreement comes up. Also yeah obviously take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt that's just common sense This is true. Personally if I read something stupid I just ignore it and move on (may not apply to somethingawful.com forums), and I don't really see it get brought up except in response to someone saying "sjws are all crazy" in response to someone saying something innocuously progressive, because as has been pointed out "sjw" has lost all meaning except as internet shorthand for liberal (though I'm sure dumb witch hunts do happen, and as Prav said that's part of the goal). I wasn't really disputing what evilweasel said so much as just pointing out that it does happen. Also thirding this: Popular Thug Drink posted:there's really no reason to take anything you read on the internet from a quasinonymous source at face value unless you really want it to be true - either because there's someone else out there who shares your desire to be a toaster or because it just proves in your mind that all of your political opponents actually are crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:
Entirely their fabrication. That's what that was about. evilweasel posted:Don't spoilertag NWS images: they're still loaded even when spoilered. Always link them. Thanks for the heads up, and the edit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 20:12
|
|
Please tell me that "freebleeding" is entirely their fabrication and that it does not exist in any way.