Cancellations

boxedjoy

Well-known member
Trans people aren't rapists, rapists are rapists. A trans person can potentially be a rapist as much as anyone potentially can be... but the cause of sexual violence is people who commit acts of sexual violence
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
alright, well given that, I would ask, what basis is there to validate the fear Rowling voices (and others have voiced)

because there are two issues - that fear existing, and validating it

that people should have that fear - sure, fear is often irrational, especially when it comes from ignorance

some portion of it is surely bigotry, pure and simple, but some part is legitimate fear coming from ignorance

Rowling specifically seems like someone who should know better, to the point where it's hard to credit that she doesn't, which only leaves bigotry
 

boxedjoy

Well-known member
A couple years ago I brought up feminism, broadly, to a roommate of mine who had been conditioned by a far more conservative environment than I had, and he asked, rather honestly, "Why should I care?".
.
But, as a person of comparative lack of privilege (ie a gay man in a heteronormative world), why should I care about protecting and respecting the feelings of people who lack the insight and empathy to respect me and humanize me?

It isn't difficult. If your response to e.g. "please don't call me a faggot, that word is hurtful in ways you can't understand" is anything other than "fair enough I will try to respect that" then you're just part of the problem.
 

vimothy

yurp
But, as a person of comparative lack of privilege (ie a gay man in a heteronormative world), why should I care about protecting and respecting the feelings of people who lack the insight and empathy to respect me and humanize me?

It isn't difficult. If your response to e.g. "please don't call me a faggot, that word is hurtful in ways you can't understand" is anything other than "fair enough I will try to respect that" then you're just part of the problem.
bc you also have to compromise, that's why
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
But, as a person of comparative lack of privilege (ie a gay man in a heteronormative world), why should I care about protecting and respecting the feelings of people who lack the insight and empathy to respect me and humanize me?

It isn't difficult. If your response to e.g. "please don't call me a faggot, that word is hurtful in ways you can't understand" is anything other than "fair enough I will try to respect that" then you're just part of the problem.
I do believe that if that is the request that is heard, then that would be the response.

I think the only think preventing that clear transmission of pathos are ideological lenses that have been, intentionally or not, clouded by people of influence, and maintained by social norms, among other factors/dynamics.

But I also believe that work can be done to de-cloud those lenses, and let people see clearly across any demographic difference and identify with what they see. Radically and irreversibly. But the de-clouding can be grisly, no?
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
obvs the fear about shared changing rooms has nothing to do with trans ppl, for the most part
that's true, but they're the flashpoint for it so that's the conversation we have to have, and the way the issue is framed

it's also an ongoing pragmatic issue for non-genderconforming - broadly - people in a way it isn't for you or I

so they're forced to think about it, talk about it, grapple with it, in a way we are not
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
whatever you expect from them
we all have to compromise at some point

but it is a point very far short of allowing people to call you a faggot [or insert relevant slur] in the name of respecting their feelings

even if you should try to respect the feelings of all people in a general sense
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
the issue isn't whether or not there has to be compromise, but where it is in relation to each position

i.e. in this case homophobes would have vastly further to travel than @boxedjoy to reach the point of compromise
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Compromising is worse on one side, tolerating the hell-end of the spectrum, but only slightly more expectable from the other side, stepping out of heaven-end of the spectrum.

One of the many ways this image is insufficient is revealed when we consider the multi-dimensional/intersectional nature of it all. Maybe there is a hell-corner of a 3D graph and a heaven-corner - but that could make it even more contrived.

The reason it is as difficult as it is to get people to acknowledge privilege, is because of how uncomfortable they become when they understand that not all lives are as heavenly - and that the heavenliness of their life is largely afforded by the lack of heavenliness elsewhere. That seems to be why progressive change involves slowly and incrementally moving people closer to the middle, the Nietzschean argument of mediocrity - but that is only in relative terms.

In absolute terms, perhaps, it is possible to get everyone closer to the heaven-end.

In relative terms, it might be zero sum. In absolute terms, I don't think it is.

But @padraig (u.s.) is right about that point of compromise being less extreme than allowing them to attack you.

Arguably, a less extreme compromise is understanding that bigotry isn't indicative of their essence, but largely a confused and aggravated mechanism of psychic self defense, utilizing (broad but, for them, sufficient) us/them distinctions. Sufficient to what end? Stabilizing their system.
 

boxedjoy

Well-known member
bigotry is bigotry, whether it's malicious or thoughtless it still manifests in the same way, and if people can't/won't learn that it is destructive and harmful to both individuals and the nebulous concept of society, then fuck them.

Trans acceptance isn't difficult. "I want to be known as X and I'm asking you to call me that" isn't difficult. Even understanding the reasons why - "I don't feel this is who I am" - isn't difficult.

It's all fair and well to talk about compromise and ideals in a theoretical vacuum but us LGBT+ people still have to go out into the actual world and deal with this stuff. It's tiring, having our existence be an "issue of debate", can we not just... exist? Why should I have to do the emotional labour of not just navigating the world and its ambient discrimination in the shadow of a spectrum that runs from minor disrespect to prejudice-borne physical violence, but then having to justify and celebrate my own being?
 

boxedjoy

Well-known member
There is a difference between people who are ignorant and people who are bigots, and I think it's crucial to understanding how these conversations play out. If I tell someone who is ignorant that being called a faggot is terrible and they shouldn't do it, they'll learn the lesson and do the work. If I tell someone who is a bigot not to call me that, they'll continue to do so because they don't care.

one thing that nearly 20 years of being an out gay man has taught me: for all you can play respectability and assimilation roles to appease people who will never respect your humanity, you will never win them over.

in 2020, these conversations are not minor niche interests. The culture war is raging large in society, and people have made their logic and positions clear. So I find it hard to believe that anyone could be "ignorant" of eg what trans existence or female existence or black existence is actually like. Bigotry is just as much a choice as "compromise" or "acceptance."
 
Top