It's really odd to see a transgender person attacking people for having "ridiculous pronouns" because most LGBT people, in activism or otherwise, have a solidarity-based approach. That's why it's LGBT and not separate lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights movements. It gains strength from unity, because the problems they face are all really the same problem.
The opponents of LGBT rights don't always attack all of them at once. Sometimes they just attack the group that's the most controversial or vulnerable, or those that haven't gained widespread acceptance yet. Nonbinary people with "ridiculous" neopronouns would be the latter. The thing is, if the argument is accepted against one group, it'll likely be accepted against others too. This already happens; conservatives' "one joke" about trans people ("I identify as an attack helicopter") is specifically mocking nonbinary people, but it's usually used to attack binary trans people. If neopronouns are ridiculous, they say, why would you accept a man [sic] saying he's [sic] a woman? And if that works, then they'll move on to lesbian, gay, and bi people, as it's been frequently noted that every attack against transgender people is a recycled attack against gay people.
So when I see people complaining about "compelled speech" for "ridiculous pronouns", I get a bit suspicious.
("The left eats its own" is also a popular right-wing narrative for portraying every dispute between a leftist and (someone they think they can get away with calling) a leftist as the beginning of the end for leftism, proof of their treachery, etc., so that's also an interesting inclusion.)
>It's really odd to see a transgender person attacking people for having "ridiculous pronouns" because most LGBT people, in activism or otherwise, have a solidarity-based approach.
Not true in my experience. This to me is only true as how it is portrayed by the fake news media folks.
>That's why it's LGBT and not separate lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights movements. It gains strength from unity, because the problems they face are all really the same problem.
There's certainly something to be said about unity and trying to fight for what is right. We are past that stage by a long shot.
>The opponents of LGBT rights don't always attack all of them at once. Sometimes they just attack the group that's the most controversial or vulnerable, or those that haven't gained widespread acceptance yet. Nonbinary people with "ridiculous" neopronouns would be the latter.
Absolutely nobody has a problem with picking whatever pronouns you want. It's on you to earn the respect needed to get people to use the pronouns. You don't get to go to the government and demand compelled speech because people think you're ridiculous.
>This already happens; conservatives' "one joke" about trans people ("I identify as an attack helicopter") is specifically mocking nonbinary people, but it's usually used to attack binary trans people
I am trans, I am non-binary, I have had SRS. Surely you accept that I get to pick my pronouns. I ought to be a they/them, I'm not. I was also airforce and find the attack helicopter one awesome. I have used that one in public before. However, all these pronouns are dumb. Right now if I were to be forced to pick pronouns. I am Beep/Boop.
Let's even backtrack slightly. Where is your threshold for when you get to pick pronouns? Do you require surgeries? Lets say that you dont believe surgery is required. Then those conservative trans people who picked their pronoun of attack helicopter are actively being mocked? Or do conservatives have to pick from the list of left-wing approved pronouns? Why do the left wing get to unilaterally get to decide this list?
>So when I see people complaining about "compelled speech" for "ridiculous pronouns", I get a bit suspicious.
Being suspicious is a good thing. Are you accusing me of not being trans enough? Obviously the compelled speech comment is not about the USA. I am VERY jealous of the USA having free speech; unlike here in Canada.
>("The left eats its own" is also a popular right-wing narrative for portraying every dispute between a leftist and (someone they think they can get away with calling) a leftist as the beginning of the end for leftism, proof of their treachery, etc., so that's also an interesting inclusion.)
I do believe Destiny is left-wing and has extensively supported for trans rights. I'm not going to speak to his entire political position.
Here's the thing. You are talking about 'narrative' which by definition implies that this is not true or a fiction or a story.
Lets step back a second, what if I am right? That this isnt a narrative...
> You don't get to go to the government and demand compelled speech because people think you're ridiculous.
That's the thing, I don't actually see trans people advocating for things like that. For example, I've seen some argue against companies making employees put pronouns in their e-mail signatures because, among other reasons, putting pronouns in the signature when it's optional is a useful indicator for if a co-worker is trans-friendly. Generally, they want people who intend to be an ass to them to reveal themselves as quickly as possible, and if they had the power to pass a law of their choosing, they would have much higher priorities than mandating correct pronouns, such as healthcare.
> Where is your threshold for when you get to pick pronouns?
If it's clear that someone isn't being genuine and is only asking people to use neopronouns as part of a rhetorical attack against trans people, the general standard is to ignore them. Otherwise, anything goes. You don't even need to be trans, necessarily. The trans people I know would certainly object to the idea that surgery is necessary.
I think there might have been a misunderstanding about the attack helicopter joke. The attack helicopter joke, nicknamed the "One Joke" for how repetitive it can get, is any joke that goes something like "I identify as an [insert noun], so now you have to do everything I say and if you don't then you're a bigot, ha ha ha." At its best, it's ordinary silly nonsense between friends. At its worst, it's a convenient cliché to dismiss any claim of insensitivity toward someone with an identity deemed unusual, by portraying it as an imperious demand.
> I ought to be a they/them, I'm not.
This is a perspective I haven't seen before. What do you mean by "ought to be a they/them"? Did someone tell you that?
> Are you accusing me of not being trans enough?
Not at all. It's mainly a general suspicion that you're trying to divide transgender people in some way.
> Destiny
I'm not familiar with him. My general second-hand impression is that a lot of people just don't like him, even if he's technically on their side of an argument, and would prefer if he just stopped.
I'm more commenting on how this kind of dispute will be portrayed as a sudden betrayal, or the left not being able to help weakening itself by attacking its allies, even when the two parties never got along in the first place. Mainly it's just an excessively dramatic way to frame an argument.
>That's the thing, I don't actually see trans people advocating for things like that.
Have you heard of Jordan Peterson? His popularity is entirely because we now have compelled speech in Canada. This compelled speech has since expanded beyond trans issues and now we have compelled speech on covid as well.
>I've seen some argue against companies making employees put pronouns in their e-mail signatures because, among other reasons, putting pronouns in the signature when it's optional is a useful indicator for if a co-worker is trans-friendly.
Games Done Quick regularly put their pronouns. Let's say I was competing and I put my personal pronoun choices of Beep/Boop. What do you think would happen? Well I'd certainly get publicly banned from GDQ and called hateful and transphobe. This is 100% certain.
Pronouns and compelled speech are not about trans people, it's about political suppression and censorship.
>Generally, they want people who intend to be an ass to them to reveal themselves as quickly as possible, and if they had the power to pass a law of their choosing, they would have much higher priorities than mandating correct pronouns, such as healthcare.
Lets even continue my prediction at GDQ. I pick my pronouns of beep/boop. As you say, I'll be quickly revealed as an ass right? GDQ would publicly ban me and say how I'm hateful. People will say I committed violence. A microaggression.
It might even go further, they might talk to my boss and try to have me fired. Decent chance I would be headed to speak with the hate crime tribunal of ontario.
It would not matter for a second that I am trans and even had SRS.
>If it's clear that someone isn't being genuine and is only asking people to use neopronouns as part of a rhetorical attack against trans people, the general standard is to ignore them. Otherwise, anything goes. You don't even need to be trans, necessarily. The trans people I know would certainly object to the idea that surgery is necessary.
So you accept my pronouns of beep/boop? I more than qualify.
Perfect, so now lets discuss Gina Carano. Trans people attacked her viciously for Beep/Boop. She got majorly cancelled and replaced on mandalorian.
From your statement you seem to be saying she can legitimately make her pronouns beep/boop. Why then did trans people attack her so aggressively?
>I think there might have been a misunderstanding about the attack helicopter joke. The attack helicopter joke, nicknamed the "One Joke" for how repetitive it can get, is any joke that goes something like "I identify as an [insert noun], so now you have to do everything I say and if you don't then you're a bigot, ha ha ha." At its best, it's ordinary silly nonsense between friends. At its worst, it's a convenient cliché to dismiss any claim of insensitivity toward someone with an identity deemed unusual, by portraying it as an imperious demand.
Should I be cancelled for my pronouns? I have literally used the attack helicopter as my pronouns before. Do I not get to pick my pronouns?
>This is a perspective I haven't seen before. What do you mean by "ought to be a they/them"? Did someone tell you that?
Typically for trans like me they go by they/them.
>Not at all. It's mainly a general suspicion that you're trying to divide transgender people in some way.
What division? I haven't told any trans what to be in any way. Trans people are 100% not united the way the media portrays. If that's not evident by my post here I dont agree with the LGBT political activist group. In fact, I would go so far as to say it's offensive to suggest this political activist group represents all of us without division.
>I'm not familiar with him. My general second-hand impression is that a lot of people just don't like him, even if he's technically on their side of an argument, and would prefer if he just stopped.
I too haven't followed him in years, this is a more recent clip and he's right. Maybe I'm missing context but frankly he's not wrong that trans shouldnt compete in womens physical sports.
There's still a debate on non-physical. Chess for example seemingly unnecessarily discriminates and even creates womens titles. Not because women have any sort of disadvantage but because if women dont then they get no spotlight at all. Should trans people be allowed to compete in the women's field? As a male I am absolutely nobody, but as female I would be top 50 for sure, probably closer to top 20.
How controversial would that be?
>I'm more commenting on how this kind of dispute will be portrayed as a sudden betrayal, or the left not being able to help weakening itself by attacking its allies, even when the two parties never got along in the first place. Mainly it's just an excessively dramatic way to frame an argument.
Fair position to be concerned with. If you haven't seen dave chappelle's latest works, I highly recommend. Especially 'sticks and stones' this was an inflection point on trans issues for the right-wing.
They are now martyrs. Every day they remain banned is hurting trans people more and more.
The real response should have been... wait why the hell does an appointed trans person with literally no achievements to their name become women of the year? There's literally lists of lists of more qualified people to be woman of the year.
This ban will remain as a spotlight on this issue.
The opponents of LGBT rights don't always attack all of them at once. Sometimes they just attack the group that's the most controversial or vulnerable, or those that haven't gained widespread acceptance yet. Nonbinary people with "ridiculous" neopronouns would be the latter. The thing is, if the argument is accepted against one group, it'll likely be accepted against others too. This already happens; conservatives' "one joke" about trans people ("I identify as an attack helicopter") is specifically mocking nonbinary people, but it's usually used to attack binary trans people. If neopronouns are ridiculous, they say, why would you accept a man [sic] saying he's [sic] a woman? And if that works, then they'll move on to lesbian, gay, and bi people, as it's been frequently noted that every attack against transgender people is a recycled attack against gay people.
So when I see people complaining about "compelled speech" for "ridiculous pronouns", I get a bit suspicious.
("The left eats its own" is also a popular right-wing narrative for portraying every dispute between a leftist and (someone they think they can get away with calling) a leftist as the beginning of the end for leftism, proof of their treachery, etc., so that's also an interesting inclusion.)
reply