welcome to the fest

Because continuing to derail the comic discussion forum seemed in poor taste. So lets quote the post I'll be responding to and go from there, yeah?

RikkiTikkiTavi wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:56 pm

Tired Mama wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:31 pm

Can I ask, honestly, in sincere good faith...

Where is the line in the sand? Because it seems my definition of harassment is wildly different from yours. Is the topic of transphobia forbidden? And if so... why is that not explicitly stated in the rules? I am legitimately just trying to exist in this forum and finding it a minefield and I say "i" and "me" because I can't speak for anyone else's experience but I don't mean to make this strictly about me personally.

What I'm trying to address is the forum as a whole and the manner in which it "greets" outsiders.

This thread has focused me on re-reading all the hot topic items in the forum. One I particularly find interesting is the "So, what should I expect?"http://www.sinfest.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9

I have only thoroughly read up to page 2 so far, but it has reminded me already of the way these discussion tend to go. I skipped around that fire-storm and found some real coals still burning.

Tired Mama, I really want to know. What is your definition of transphobia? Who in your mind is an 'outsider' to this forum?
I am not trying to throw gas on a fire. I really want to know - but I also know that probably this is going to combust.
Because if you read the very last post of "So, what should I expect?" - I speculate that this thread is going to end up a whole lot like that thread. - Not saying because of you personally Tired Mama. I just think that any post that wants to talk about anything trans is going to stir up the crab bucket.

And I just want to know should I go ahead and get the popcorn popping...

Let me start, RikkiTikkiTavi, by thanking you for your continued respectful candor. I mentioned it once in an older thread with my first account, but would like to reiterate the sentiment. I genuinely enjoy discussing issues with you. As an added bonus, your username and icon are a very beloved cornerstone of my childhood, which has nothing to do with anything but it constantly makes me smile.

Moving on...

To define transphobia, I could easily copy-paste from a dictionary or wikipedia or what have you... what I think would be more useful and edifying in this context would be to clarify what I define as transphobic behavior- specifically as I have witnessed it in the comic itself and the forums here.

Lets start with the rampant misgendering, which can certainly not be claimed at this point to be anything other than intentional. It may seem to many here to either be a: just a word, or b: calling out the truth, but at it's core it is- at best- a microaggression. Further it is highly offensive to many and, for some individuals, enough to push ones mental state into a dysphoric spiral.

Looking more towards the comic itself, can we really argue that the current depiction of trans individuals is anything other than insulting? And often downright vilifying. Violent, pill-pushing, cis-hating zombies that aggressively demand to be given all their wants on a platter... Look. I'm not going to sit here and say that there's no such thing as a transgender asshole. Of *course* there is. Pick any group of any identity, subset, cause, or even hobby, and you will find assholes. They're everywhere. But they aren't the face of the group as a whole and there is absolutely zero examples in the comic of anything other than the worst possible face of the trans community.

What can I call that if not transphobia? It paints such an ugly picture and sends a strong message re: where the comic stands on such people.

And yet, never is it explicitly stated in this forum or it's guidelines that trans folk need not apply. Never is it stated that discussing this issue is forbidden. So when the topic *is* brought up the fires roar and everything gets out of hand real fast. But nine times out of ten these are just people trying to bring to light something that maybe, just maybe, should be considered changing for the better?

Look, I know that there have been people who come to this forum guns blazing just to start a fight. But that doesn't mean everyone who ever has a critical thing to say is out to do that, right? I myself am legitimately here to both learn and, while I know it's a long shot at best, maybe just maybe change someone's mind a little bit. Not about the importance of feminism, not about the need to abolish the porn industry, I'm in agreement with the cornerstones here. But it seems to me that there's another piece of foundation that just doesn't get acknowledged. And it's something I think is worth trying to change.

I hope this made some degree of sense. I don't always succeed in getting my thoughts out clearly, but I try.

Glad you responded. It is always good to hear other's views and opinions when they are coming from people of reason.

I don't intend to speak for anyone else other than myself because 1) - who am I to speak for others and, 2) - there is just too much to unpack and too many variables to address.

I endeavor to be polite which means I will use the pronoun a person asks me to use. That does not however mean that I accept the premise that people can change their biological origins. I am a person of science and I value logic and reason. Emotion based evidence just does not have the same weight as science. Testimonials are not as valuable as controlled studies. But - I am polite, I am caring and I really do love people.

I first knew about trans people way back in the 60s. My dad came home one day and told us about a person in his company who was a woman, but became a transsexual man. He told us about it as one of those 'truth is stranger than fiction' kind of stories. He did not particularly disparage the person, but he thought it was weird.

Fast forward to the 80s. I start to work for the same company as my dad. Guess who is my coworker? Yep. It was the transsexual 'Ken'. He and I shared a workspace, carpooled together and ate lunch together. He told me a whole bunch of 'invented' history, such as how his daughter's mother had died at her birth when actually Ken was her mother. He never outed himself to me but did say one day he and I should have a 'talk'. Mind you, I figured out who he was by about the second week there.

Everyone at the office treated Ken as a man - even though a good many of them had known him as a woman. Ken was promoted and treated well by management. In fact the management must have made talking about Ken a forbidden thing because there were only furtive conversations from my coworkers trying to make sure I 'knew'.

Ken was not that well liked by several. He was a bit of a jerk in several ways and authoritarian in his dealings with others.

I don't know why Ken stayed in the same job/city when his transition was supposed to be such a secret. It seems to me it would have been a lot easier to at least transfer to a different city.

Ken was never a close friend of mine even though we spent a good deal of time together. His jerky ways were hard to take but for me it was the constant 'invented' history that I found off-putting. Why make shit up when you could just not mention it?

Did not liking Ken make me transphobic? No - you probably wouldn't have liked him either. Do I consider Ken a man? No. He is a transsexual man. Nothing about his surgery changed his birth biology.

And this is what bothers me. A transsexual is a human deserving of dignity and respect - just like any other person. Do they actually become the other sex? No. They are a transsexual man or they are a transsexual woman - but biologically nothing other than secondary sexual characteristics have been changed - and in some cases even these are not changed.

So, asking me to assert that a trans-woman is a woman is asking me to say a falsehood. (and let's not quibble about intersexed people who exist in extremely small numbers in the population)

We are biologically the sex we are born - there are males and there are females. If a person feels they are a transsexual then they are still a male or a female - but they are in another category that has nothing to do with biological sex.

This is not my full view on the matter (too many points, too much to unpack...).

Does this in your mind constitute transphobia?

In my mind? No. No I don't think it does.

You, like any other sentient being on the planet, are entitled to your beliefs/opinions/viewpoints/etc. and frankly you voice them with eloquence and respect. Heck, in straight up hard science facts? I'm inclined to concede to your point to at least some degree.

What really separates it, in my opinion, and keeps it well out of the realm of transphobia, is the aforementioned respect. You referred to Ken consistently as 'he' and your only quibbles with him were legitimate points of character that had nothing to do with his gender identity. You judged him on his merits as a person, no more no less. Besides which, I see nothing wrong with calling a trans-man exactly that, and likewise for a trans-woman.

It's calling trans-women 'Trans identifying men' and vice versa for trans-men that crosses that line into inappropriate and/or phobic language. It isn't something you yourself have done in this discussion, but others certainly have. I find it downright distasteful to package misgendering language and potential dysphoria triggers in such back-handed terminology.

I think the 'trans-identifying' tag is used in frustration. After all, one of the things that is harped upon by the trans activists is that we must accept a person based on an identity they 'feel'. They don't have to have a persistent behavior from childhood, they don't have to attempt to look a certain way, they don't have to pursue medical intervention. A person can just decide they are another sex based on a 'feeling'.

Thus a person with a full beard, short hair, and a penis can declare themselves a woman. And we are to immediately know to use the correct pronoun. And we are to allow them full access to women spaces such as bathrooms, shelters, etc.

We have all witnessed the abuse of this 'power' - it makes my blood boil. And we are allowing the vocal minority of trans activism to change laws and invaded spaces which puts at risk many women who are vulnerable.

We are also witnessing child abuse in the form of puberty blocking drugs, monstrous surgeries on children, cult like conversions of previously gender normative teens.

We are witnessing psychological abuse in the form of doxing, gaslighting, censoring, cancel culture.

We are witness to those who are wanting to take advantage of this chaos to do whatever they please under the 'trans' flag.

So yes, the 'trans-identifying' tag gets used.

We are seeing what amounts in my opinion to an attack by trans activists on homosexuality. Why else declare that lesbians are not allowed to seek out only female at birth women. We are seeing what amounts in my opinion to an attack by trans activists on women. Why else declare that the definition of women is wrong and must include male at birth men who feel they are women.

I don't think trans identifying is an inaccurate statement. But yes, I can see as how it can be interpreted in a negative and belittling way. It is one of those grey areas where what is written does not necessarily impart the intent of the writer. That is the way of all emotionally charged conversations. It is not what is said, it is 'how' it is said - or more correctly - 'how' it is heard.

But just how do we deal with a situation that allows so much hostility and negativity by people who can literally just 'feel' a different way tomorrow.

It is a natural human response to want to sort people into categories. Hair color, skin color, sex - these are basic. We cannot help but see them. It is our culture that indoctrinates us into beliefs about these characteristics. We personally must all guard against unconscious prejudice based on these simple things.

Now trans activists are telling us that one of these basic categories does not exist. We cannot know a person's sex unless we ask them. Now trans activists are telling us we must change all other categories to give a preference to trans individuals. We must sacrifice safety and reason in order to accommodate a potentially fluctuating trans identity.

There is nothing but frustration on both sides. Trans people are frustrated because they just want to be accepted. Non trans people are frustrated because they don't want to be forced to accommodate unreasonable demands. The trans activists are at fault because they would prefer to watch the world burn rather than compromise.

There are a lot of points here, RikkiTikki, and the majority of them in my opinion are examples of extremes along with some cases of just outright exaggeration. But that aside, one thing does stand out to me and rather stick in my craw as t'were. The matter of saying that someone can just decided to 'feel' a certain way as a cornerstone to transgender identities.

Ones gender identity is not some flippant changeable feeling that you can just roll out of bed one morning and have arrive onto you. Your sense of self and who/what you are in the world just does not work like that. Can it change? Yes. Can it turn on a dime? Not so much. Can you discover parts of it later in life you didn't realise were always somewhere in the background? you betcha.

But if you want to say that a person can just 'feel' like one gender or another as easily as changing shirts then I would like to propose that the same can be done for any other invisible factor of the human condition.

If you are correct, and these identities are just changeable 'feelings', well, for fun I shall wake up tomorrow and 'feel' neurotypical and straight.

I don't in any way wish to vilify or belittle anyone who is making the honest assessment of themselves as trans. I am not talking about reasonable and sane people. I afford the title of trans the same respect I do for other definitions such as gay, lesbian and straight. We come to those conclusions based on self searching or perhaps for many - that's just the way it is and they never have given it much thought.

So let's debate a specific thought process:

Changes are happening in the legal system that pretty much accept no other proof than a person's claim as evidence of their 'gender' (and I put gender in quotes because so often these days it is used interchangeably with 'sex' - not accurately in my opinion and for those who focus on biology - and all this is making for a confusion swill).

It is not exaggeration nor hyperbole to state that some people are taking advantage of the situation.

We are - no matter the group we represent - all of us held accountable - held hostage - to the actions of those very few that are intent on doing evil/harm/hate.

Most men do not wish to actively harm women (let's put patriarchy aside here for this thought process). A man who wishes to prey upon women is therefore an aberration - suffering from some sort of mental illness. Now, if I have a law in place that allows for safe havens for women that excludes men - and I have an evaluation process to filter out men from women - I cut down on the potential harm to those women. If on the other hand I change the laws and allow for a more porous evaluation process - in other words, men can come in as long as they just 'say' they are women - I increase the risk to the women in the safe haven. Other than exclusion - how do we weed out the predatory men?

(and believe me - if women were as violent and predatory as men I would include them in this thought process - they just are not - no study has ever shown them to be - and this is not saying that some women are not homicidal maniacs - they just as a group are not - so as a group they are less of a threat)

Do trans women need safe havens - hell yes. Why in the world is the trans activist movement not focused on creating these safe havens? In my mind, trans women would really benefit from the advice of other trans women who have experienced similar issues.

The wolves are out there. It is not exaggeration nor hyperbole for me to be against an 'inclusive' plan that increases risks to the most vulnerable. Exclusion is appropriate in certain situations.

All I seem to find in the trans activist focus is an over the top focus on any exclusion as something horrible and bad to trans people. No compromise, no consideration to others who are vulnerable. It is trans activism that I am talking about. It is that mindset that seem to be the greatest problem.

I would go on for longer and talk about other issues - but my free time is up.
We do not live in a utopia. Unless we defend the defenseless and champion the weak, the world becomes a living hell.

What would your solution be to this shelter situation?

So let me get this straight (pun intended?) having gone over the last comment or two here. Mama is clearly the black sheep pointing out the basics of where trans rights break down. Tavi is, with serious consideration ("put patriarchy aside" usually isn't a phrase taken too lightly), highlighting the severity with which this breakdown occurs, and where we resolve it. However, as someone who's lived in the woods for the past month, my conjecture is this is about class too, which I'll cover later on.

Somewhere in there may be a joke about the most predatory men are the only demographic that has yet to experience its own rape. In any event, there was that one time I decided to be a girl for a few minutes because someone had taken the library's men's room for an hour. After, an older guy came to to me and asked if he was good to use it. I asked him is he up to be a girl for a few minutes? He actually said no and I had to be like haha I'm still sure you're okay there. And he was. But personally, the lesson gleaned from that is to be whatever gender you want me to be. And, over time, people began to argue over my gender.

Before I make the other point about gender, I will bring up the class aspect for clarity here. My white male privilege and my class privilege can have some sharp distinctions. Namely, I'm homeless and still not poor. All the isms-- classism, sexism, ageism, sizeism (the last one took forever to not just be known as fat phobia), and so on, can have their relativity. My own take on it is to do charity work and convert clunkers into tiny home trailers for free and resolve homelessness forever because cars don't necessarily require property tax.

And so now I would like to note that in Intimate Terrorism, Miller points out that we are in fact not even using gender as it once was. It's originally a linguistic distinction not meant for application to actual human beings. And here we are. Kind of like my post about the dollar-- if a dollar means piece of silver, then every federal reserve note in existence is transgender money. Okay that's a bit far, the idea is there though...!

-Russly

Hi Russly,
Your posts are always have a distinctly Russly spin which requires me to read them a couple of times. Not a bad thing at all, but sometimes I am afraid I miss your overall point and that leads me at a loss to add anything to your responses.

My last post was written in order to shift the conversation with Mama away from the personal and into the specific realities of what trans activism was doing to vulnerable women.

As of today, the current administration has chosen to make it so that all spaces must be open to all sexes. There can no longer be any space that is designated for females or for males. All that is required to access any space that was previously designed for a particular sex is that a person self identifies as that sex (although they call it gender). In my opinion, this administration has declared that there are no rights allowed to a person based on sex - we only allow rights based on this nebulous construction called gender.

If I want to distinguish someones sex, I have a number of hard science factual ways to do this. I can test their chromosomes and for the vast majority of people this would reveal them as either XX or XY (the aberration from these is so slight that it hardly matters in a real world situation - most trans people are either XX or XY). I could also look on their birth certificate where a knowledgeable doctor had observed the newborn infant and found they had characteristics that we agree are either male or female.

As far as gender - which is a totally social construct and trends toward stereotypes - there is nothing that I can test to determine someone's gender other than what they present. Gender is not a scientific or biological term. We do not track statistics based on gender.

We do however track statistics based on sex. For example, based on statistics we know that female humans are more likely to produce eggs and we know male humans are more likely to produce sperm. We also know that when violence occurs, the perpetrators of the violence are in greater percentages of the male population. We also know that the greatest percentage of violence towards females occurs from the male population.

Okay - so in the past, one of the ways we have helped the women who have been subject to the violence of males is to offer them shelter that excluded males. We have in fact done this to protect these women from future violence.

Now, due to this current administration, we can no longer offer these shelters to women because the shelter cannot exclude males. All a male has to do is declare they are a woman and they can enter the shelter.

Now some may cheer this because there are a very small number of trans women who need to be protected from the violence of males as well. Instead of creating a separate space for these trans women it has been decreed that they must be allowed into the women shelters.

Now for this thought experiment we shall disregard that trans women might be violent or abusive to women in the shelter. Let's just say that they are all sugar and spice and everything nice. They might have penises, but they keep them to themselves and don't bother the women with these male genitals. All is well.

But no, not all is well. Here comes a predatory male. He sees this shelter full of vulnerable women and he wants to abuse them. So he goes to the shelter and tells them that he identifies as a woman. Yes, he has a full beard, wears pants, and has a fully functional penis that really gets turgid at the thought of all those vulnerable women. But, he identifies as a woman, as of today in fact and from now on he uses the pronoun 'she'.

Because of this administration and due to the pressure from trans activists they cannot legally deny 'her' entrance. 'She' gets to come in and live with them. 'She' gets to take showers with them and leer at them and wank on 'her' peener if 'she' wants to.

If you think this is an exaggeration or hyperbole - the horrible truth is that this has already happened. A trans woman was allowed access to a shelter and into the showers with the women. This trans woman had issues. This trans woman leered at and harassed the women. This trans woman spoke of having erections in the morning and masterbating - I wish I was joking - but no. The women of the shelter who objected were told they would be asked to leave the shelter if they did not shower with the jerk.

Okay - so that was a jerk and other trans women have been in shelters and did no create issues. This is also true.

But now - this isolated incident is going to become the norm. There is absolutely no way for women to have a space dedicated to only female humans.

Predatory men exist. They are looking for ways to prey upon women. They are looking for loopholes and WOW - did this administration just give them one. WOW - the trans activists really got their way didn't they.

You think - oh, this is just all hyperbole - what man would 'debase' themselves and declare they are a woman? How about a pimp who is chasing down a woman who no longer wants to work for him? Or he just sees this as an opportunity to get some more sex workers - you know, women down on their luck. What about the abusive spouse? Maybe he pays someone to target his woman in the shelter. What about the serial rapist? What about the guy with the fetish?

Here we are - it is only February and things are looking pretty bleak for female humans here in the US.

Since I will be reading the reply sentence by sentence, I would like to preface this with the fact that I notice Squig has yet to pull a me and return to busking while living in the woods. Firstly, you aren't the only one to mention a Russly spin on stuff...! Secondly, being in the woods, I'm using a wifi hotspot nearby and a lady in a neon jacket with a dog totally just faked me out as a cop and she was like whoops didn't even see you.

So....

I -am- able to do some tl;drs, just usually isn't
worth it. People understand me insofar as they are willing to take the time to talk to me. Usually I am the long poster in most places so my cryptic behavior is a saving grace here.

One immediate story that comes to mind is that time I was on Facebook talking to some guy who didn't know about Turner's Syndrome and the like and I actually tripped them out and got them to question themselves about XX and XY math.... My friend wasn't able to get through to them but somehow I managed to care little enough to speak that openly. However, it sounds like in your case the immediate quandary is in people not caring enough to make sex a precedent to gender. Which, yes, may be the whole point here. So I may add gender to the more 'personality' based issues surrounding bathrooms and such, yet hasten to note we are in a time when snowflakes know no sex nor gender.

In fact, short of Krav Maga or Hockey which are simply dick centered quarrels, I do hope one result of this sad state of affairs is the continuation of this women's movement and namely that women continue to learn they can maintain physical prowess too. But... this leans into some of that D Man advocacy of women being in charge of their destiny despite otherwise obvious subjugation. It can be relative. So maybe best beware to stay the course and hope Buddha shows up... eventually.

Turgid... I may or may not have heard that one before. I think of that article about a trans girl who kept her beard, that was a weird one. I know one trans girl who kept her male name almost as a statement. You're right about the loophole therein though. Now males are allowed into the what were supposed to be safe spaces for women. Now, I'm all for robot overlords when they surpass our subjugation, but a matriarchy may be a fair alternative for surpassing subjugation only if we really do learn to share physical prowess and distribute it more evenly?

Your last bit only brings to mind one topic: anime. Specifically harem anime. Good pimps don't exist, but there are otaku out there wishing they were that one that did. A lot of said otaku. Not the amount as females who are oppressed, but male suicide is known to be a common phenomenon in certain regions worldwide I believe. So is student suicide in those Japanese schools.

Tat jumped on the bandwagon when BLM grew bigger. This isn't to be criticized. It is to be celebrated! The comic went full circle.

-Russly