OF GAMES, REPRESENTATION, AND WOMEN'S CHEEKBONES
Posts
author=WetMattos
That, or both me and Solitayre are pointing out that the Liberal approach to this conundrum probably won't do us any good, for it does not aim to correct preexisting power imbalances in favour of the stigmatized - which is a central point in most Social Justice thinking - and that we might have to take sides if Social Justice is what we want to debate.
It's fair enough if Soli, like yourself, feels strongly about these issues, and he has all the right in the world to call people out on it. It's just that the idea of him outright banning people, or changing the rules to say, idk, NO dissenting opinions allowed (even if said dissenting opinions include stuff like mentioning how they're against sexuality) that, quite frankly, scares me.
I think the rules we have in place should be fine, as long as we keep enforcing them. Topics like this one don't seem to go unnoticed by the mods. I definitely don't want to ban people who are legitimately just naive or seriously asking questions about things they don't understand, because there's an opportunity there for everyone to learn something. There's a lot that can be discussed about potentially sensitive topics that relates to videogames and representation, and I think this board should definitely host those sorts of conversations while we can handle them. It's the people who are outright hostile, stubborn, and proud of their hateful opinions that cause the real problems.
author=Yellow Magic
It's fair enough if Soli, like yourself, feels strongly about these issues, and he has all the right in the world to call people out on it. It's just that the idea of him outright banning people, or changing the rules to say, idk, NO dissenting opinions allowed (even if said dissenting opinions include stuff like mentioning how they're against sexuality) that, quite frankly, scares me.
I can't ban anyone or change any rules, nor would I ever implement a rule that says 'you must agree with me or be banned.'
author=Yellow Magic
It's fair enough if Soli, like yourself, feels strongly about these issues, and he has all the right in the world to call people out on it. It's just that the idea of him outright banning people, or changing the rules to say, idk, NO dissenting opinions allowed (even if said dissenting opinions include stuff like mentioning how they're against sexuality) that, quite frankly, scares me.
For most part, i can't take responsability for what have been said before me, but if anything i have said in any way suggests that i want to ban people who disagree with me, here's me saying that i put that wrong, and that was not what i meant.
That doesn't mean that i support Free Speech as it has been put here, which is a very different point to be made.
author=Satedwetmattos
That's a way to put it, and honestly here i won't be arguing with you. If, in your perspective, all positions have equal weight and important in all matters, well, who am i to disagree?
I don't think that all positions have equal weight. I'm just aware that I'm not the only one with a set of scales.
That was directed to SnowOwl.
Which does brings me to this...
author=SnowOwl
Please stop it with the whole martyr thing, it's not helping any sort of discussion. Act like adults. If you want respect, don't act like a coddled baby needing protection.
And yes, I do believe that each and every person has the right to an opinion, as long as they state it in a respectful manner. If you don't, you're the one in the wrong.
No martyrdom here, i'm just really tired from having to deal with stubborn folks on a forum on the internet who appear to get really upset that i'm not liberal. Also, if you do believe that people need to act as something, anything, to deserve respect, i feel in the right to call you a bigot, because that's the very definition of respectability politics and i'm not here for it.
With that said, well, i have never questioned the right of people of having opinions. I have, however, pointed out that not every opinion has the same weight in all conversations, and that some opinions, however politely stated, still carry hateful discourses, and thus should be moderated on their repercutions, rather than their presentation. Evidently, what consists of hateful discourses depends on the viewer, but that's what moderation is for, right?
author=Sated
FTFY. An opinion doesn't need to be hateful for it to be expressed in an hostile, stubborn manner. There are plenty of examples of that in this very thread.
I agree that sometimes people express totally valid opinions in incredibly hostile and unhelpful ways, but that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about beliefs that are so aggressive and violent by their very nature that there is no way to express them that isn't harmful; there is no amount of sugar-coating that will mask them.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=SnowOwl
Please stop it with the whole martyr thing, it's not helping any sort of discussion. Act like adults. If you want respect, don't act like a coddled baby needing protection.
And yes, I do believe that each and every person has the right to an opinion, as long as they state it in a respectful manner. If you don't, you're the one in the wrong.
I think you need to do some serious reassessing if, in the face of what people like WetMattos are bringing up, this is your response.
I'm getting increasingly irritated that people keep trying to spin me as some kind of insatiable tyrant king who wants to ban everyone in exchange for a pat on the head, and force the survivors to live under my rigid solitocracy. This for daring to suggest 'hey, saying you hate gay people really shouldn't be tolerated, even if you say it really politely.'
I'm very troubled by the fact that if someone were to say 'gay people and their rights shouldn't be respected or accepted' everyone falls all over themselves to say "his right to say this must be respected" but when our transgender friends want to make a topic talking about trans issues suddenly everyone is like "Whoa hold up there buddy you're being ridiculous here."
Like, am I the only one who sees this? Am I going insane? It's okay, you can tell me.
I'm very troubled by the fact that if someone were to say 'gay people and their rights shouldn't be respected or accepted' everyone falls all over themselves to say "his right to say this must be respected" but when our transgender friends want to make a topic talking about trans issues suddenly everyone is like "Whoa hold up there buddy you're being ridiculous here."
Like, am I the only one who sees this? Am I going insane? It's okay, you can tell me.
I'm pretty sure people are reading into Soli's posts more than what he'se said. I've seen nothing about banning people and I know for fact that he's super supportive of NOT doing that, so people, stop putting those kinds of words in his mouth. Soli definitely is not supporting an all and all ban or silence of anyone with different opinions. Hell, he's one of the mods who has been very supportive of not restricting things too much.
If anyone's all for banning (words, 'code' and, yes, people) it'd be me, so chill peeps.
Soli, I just see a difference between willful and deliberate snidery and someone just sharing their belief without the intention of hurting others, is all. Certain people did the dirty - using code and deliberately skirting the site laws to technically be 'okay' - while someone else just commented their own beliefs - without the intention of causing harm, just to be part of the conversation. It's my thought the the first is definitely not okay, but that the second was... not okay exactly (more the fact that person thinks that than the fact they shared - but then without them sharing there's no way to correct that kind of thinking or talk it to bits and pieces - like I tried to do when talking about all the other kinds of sins that are worthy of death and how silly the idea of it is (and how people shouldn't get upset about being called a sin when literally a hundred other stupid stuff is considered a sin too)) but worth exploration and talking about - not the lambasting that was given.
That said, you and I have differences of opinions on that, but we can both agree that the rules need work and that how it's currently running isn't going to work with topics like this anymore. It hasn't since #GG started up and certain bodies of the site began only posting in threads like this, shitting them up and causing mayhem.
If anyone's all for banning (words, 'code' and, yes, people) it'd be me, so chill peeps.
Soli, I just see a difference between willful and deliberate snidery and someone just sharing their belief without the intention of hurting others, is all. Certain people did the dirty - using code and deliberately skirting the site laws to technically be 'okay' - while someone else just commented their own beliefs - without the intention of causing harm, just to be part of the conversation. It's my thought the the first is definitely not okay, but that the second was... not okay exactly (more the fact that person thinks that than the fact they shared - but then without them sharing there's no way to correct that kind of thinking or talk it to bits and pieces - like I tried to do when talking about all the other kinds of sins that are worthy of death and how silly the idea of it is (and how people shouldn't get upset about being called a sin when literally a hundred other stupid stuff is considered a sin too)) but worth exploration and talking about - not the lambasting that was given.
That said, you and I have differences of opinions on that, but we can both agree that the rules need work and that how it's currently running isn't going to work with topics like this anymore. It hasn't since #GG started up and certain bodies of the site began only posting in threads like this, shitting them up and causing mayhem.
Why would Solitayre take issue with what YM said, when YM was quoting WetMattos, who is clearly arguing for "Rules of engagement"?
Also can we please, pretty please, drop the facade that labels like 'SJW' or 'Tumblr' are "code" to insult people? Perhaps they are meant that way when somebody is being singled out, or ganged up upon. But for the most part, people use labels or talk in abstract terms in order to convey ideas more easily. If you're going to start cracking down on that, could you at least do so all across the board? Because is not like the other side is above making remarks about "Reddit", "MRAs", "Conservatives" and a long list of etceteras.
But preferably, let's not do any of that? The rules are fine as they are. The best solution for speech you don't like is more speech, not less.
Also can we please, pretty please, drop the facade that labels like 'SJW' or 'Tumblr' are "code" to insult people? Perhaps they are meant that way when somebody is being singled out, or ganged up upon. But for the most part, people use labels or talk in abstract terms in order to convey ideas more easily. If you're going to start cracking down on that, could you at least do so all across the board? Because is not like the other side is above making remarks about "Reddit", "MRAs", "Conservatives" and a long list of etceteras.
But preferably, let's not do any of that? The rules are fine as they are. The best solution for speech you don't like is more speech, not less.
Sure, except that almost every time they're used on this site, in topics like this it's a in the capacity of an implied insult.
I'm a lil surprised people seem to be talking about what happened in a separate thread as if it happened here? just...just in case anyone was wondering, no, the whole "someone said they felt being LGBT+ was a sin in a topic about LGBT+ matters" was not here. I mean yeah, it happened, just not in this particular thread. Unless it did and every topic about Social Discussion has just become a blur in my memory. idk there
Yellow Magic i'm singling you out here but like, i just wanna note I don't actually think you're the source of what I'm complaining about or are the PRIMO OFFENDER or anything here
when people start saying things like this...
or this...
or this... (with bonus appearance of the slur im so sick of hearing about)
I start wondering if they've actually looked at RMN's code of conduct or site policies?
These are a couple policies geared towards encouraging discussions. There's a warn feature that is not banishing someone to the shadow realm forever, but a slap on the wrist. This is a good combination.
I don't know why people keep dropping the possibility that RMN might start banning people for having different opinions. It's incredibly frustrating when people jump to the extreme ends of censorship as soon as any kind of talk about regulating behavior comes up. This keeps happening and like, im sick of beating that poor dead horse. I feel like I'd be beating up that horse's ghost.
But here's the thing, though. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is just saying something controversial to piss someone off. However, once you move away from the obvious, clear-cut cases, you're left with a lot of things that are very disruptive and do nothing but try to shut down discussion... but do not technically fall under "personal insults" or "trolling". Unless you define "personal insult" very, very broadly, which comes with its own problems!
Something like this? the only thing this can do is rile folks up. It's really obvious when people start doing that. (side note: note how some people like to bring up the very specific concept of trigger warnings as if they're in any way relevant to what's been discussed here)
SnowOwl's first post in the thread? This falls more into the kinds of comments that are disruptive and only serve to shut down discussion... but it's not exactly a clear-cut violation of policy 1 or 2, imo. So yes, technically someone can come into a thread and respond to social critique with "have you considered not being offended/taking it personally/ignoring it", but they probably shouldn't. Does this stop anyone? Not really.
Hell, even if you started being more liberal with warns for that sort of thing, I would expect that to generate more talk about tyranny and censorship even though warns =/= banning.
Even posts like this didn't seem to help much.
This specific issue (where it's super easy for people to show up to a thread, comment in a way that primarily tries to shut down discussion or derail it into censorship or complaints about "why are people discussing this?", and technically not violate existing policy) is where I personally think there could be some room for change either in policy or how it's enforced. I don't think anyone needs to worry about even theoretical changes turning into "I could be banned for having a different opinion". This has never been the case and I highly doubt it will start.
unrelated but something i feel compelled to comment on:
I'll bet my left pinky that you were raised in a culture that was transphobic and have been exposed to transphobic ideas for decades. A few years of being friends with trans people or typing the words "I support them 100%" does not change that.
It's way more useful when you stop thinking about bigotry as a defining personality trait you may or may not have and instead think of it as a process you work to unlearn. Starting from "am I doing something transphobic" is much less stressful than evaluating your identity as a person by thinking of it as "am I transphobic?"
plus "I have friends from X group, therefore I can't possibly be X-ist/phobic" is like... that's a great way to open your mouth a mile wide for both feet to fit into.
I am trans and I would not be so self-assured as to think this makes me magically immune from ever saying/doing something transphobic. (and if a friend ever thinks of me as their Trans Friend they will quickly find i am actually their Trans Enemy)
Yellow Magic i'm singling you out here but like, i just wanna note I don't actually think you're the source of what I'm complaining about or are the PRIMO OFFENDER or anything here
author = Yellow Magic
the idea of him outright banning people, or changing the rules to say, idk, NO dissenting opinions allowed (even if said dissenting opinions include stuff like mentioning how they're against sexuality) that, quite frankly, scares me.
when people start saying things like this...
or this...
author= alterego
Just because his opinions were not the ones the OP wanted to hear, it doesn't mean it's Ok to threaten him with administrative action.
or this... (with bonus appearance of the slur im so sick of hearing about)
author= Max McGee
What you are doing is entirely different. It is censorship which you are obviously a really big fan of. "You're not allowed to say 'tranny' because some people find it triggering." Give me a fucking break, dude.
I start wondering if they've actually looked at RMN's code of conduct or site policies?
author = code of conduct
1. Refrain from personal attacks
If you disagree with users, aim your rebuttals and comments at their ideas and points, and not the people themselves. In other words, don't be a dick. Name-calling, slander/libel, and other forms of personal attacks are off limits in our community. Retaliating in kind should be kept to personal forms of communication, if done at all.
2. Do not troll
Intentionally posting false and/or controversial comments just to annoy or anger users is immature and not allowed. We all engage in the occasional bout of trollish behavior, regardless of intent, but it's always a net negative to the community because it can annoy others and distract from our focus of making and discussing games.
These are a couple policies geared towards encouraging discussions. There's a warn feature that is not banishing someone to the shadow realm forever, but a slap on the wrist. This is a good combination.
I don't know why people keep dropping the possibility that RMN might start banning people for having different opinions. It's incredibly frustrating when people jump to the extreme ends of censorship as soon as any kind of talk about regulating behavior comes up. This keeps happening and like, im sick of beating that poor dead horse. I feel like I'd be beating up that horse's ghost.
But here's the thing, though. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is just saying something controversial to piss someone off. However, once you move away from the obvious, clear-cut cases, you're left with a lot of things that are very disruptive and do nothing but try to shut down discussion... but do not technically fall under "personal insults" or "trolling". Unless you define "personal insult" very, very broadly, which comes with its own problems!
author=SnowOwl
What a massive clusterfuck this is. This triggers my enjoyment PTSD. Make of that what you will.
Something like this? the only thing this can do is rile folks up. It's really obvious when people start doing that. (side note: note how some people like to bring up the very specific concept of trigger warnings as if they're in any way relevant to what's been discussed here)
author=SnowOwl
Perhaps you shouldn't take everything personally. I can't see this being related in any possible way to trans people.
SnowOwl's first post in the thread? This falls more into the kinds of comments that are disruptive and only serve to shut down discussion... but it's not exactly a clear-cut violation of policy 1 or 2, imo. So yes, technically someone can come into a thread and respond to social critique with "have you considered not being offended/taking it personally/ignoring it", but they probably shouldn't. Does this stop anyone? Not really.
Hell, even if you started being more liberal with warns for that sort of thing, I would expect that to generate more talk about tyranny and censorship even though warns =/= banning.
Even posts like this didn't seem to help much.
This specific issue (where it's super easy for people to show up to a thread, comment in a way that primarily tries to shut down discussion or derail it into censorship or complaints about "why are people discussing this?", and technically not violate existing policy) is where I personally think there could be some room for change either in policy or how it's enforced. I don't think anyone needs to worry about even theoretical changes turning into "I could be banned for having a different opinion". This has never been the case and I highly doubt it will start.
unrelated but something i feel compelled to comment on:
author = Libery
Don't take that to mean I hate you or that I'm transphobic in any way. I've friends and people I know who are trans and I support them 100%, but acting like an ass? Everyone is capable of that - it's a human trait, not restricted to any gender.
I'll bet my left pinky that you were raised in a culture that was transphobic and have been exposed to transphobic ideas for decades. A few years of being friends with trans people or typing the words "I support them 100%" does not change that.
It's way more useful when you stop thinking about bigotry as a defining personality trait you may or may not have and instead think of it as a process you work to unlearn. Starting from "am I doing something transphobic" is much less stressful than evaluating your identity as a person by thinking of it as "am I transphobic?"
plus "I have friends from X group, therefore I can't possibly be X-ist/phobic" is like... that's a great way to open your mouth a mile wide for both feet to fit into.
I am trans and I would not be so self-assured as to think this makes me magically immune from ever saying/doing something transphobic. (and if a friend ever thinks of me as their Trans Friend they will quickly find i am actually their Trans Enemy)
That's great, except I wasn't being transphobic. I honestly do not care about a person's gender and if someone says that they identify as something then that's that. That is what they are, in my book. (Granted, I slip up when referring sometimes - especially when I've known them as another gender before-hand, but that is a constant battle and something I know about and am working on.)
Please don't presume to think you understand how my mind works. Yes, I was brought up by highly religious people, but my own grandmother is gay as the day is long, and I've never been one to care about other peoples' opinions when it comes to deciding things and how I react to them. So, quite frankly, I'm not being -phobic in any way, shape or form. I will call people out for bullshit, though, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or whatever.
I'm well aware of my own biases. Comes from examining yourself and asking yourself questions about your own state of mind and why you react to things a certain way. Something I've been doing since I was a child, when I first realised I wasn't exactly normal (mental condition) and again when I realised my sexuality was quite different. I searched for my own answers and examined my own thoughts because I had no-one else but myself to do so with. I highly recommend more people do that, btw.
Examine your own biases and why they exist.
Challenge them and understand them.
No-one is perfect, no, but understanding yourself can help you move forward and become a more rounded person.
Never presume that what you know of yourself is true for others. Even if you share the same experiences there will be differences and you can never 100% know another person no matter how much they tell you about yourself (but that's just half the fun!).
Please don't presume to think you understand how my mind works. Yes, I was brought up by highly religious people, but my own grandmother is gay as the day is long, and I've never been one to care about other peoples' opinions when it comes to deciding things and how I react to them. So, quite frankly, I'm not being -phobic in any way, shape or form. I will call people out for bullshit, though, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or whatever.
I'm well aware of my own biases. Comes from examining yourself and asking yourself questions about your own state of mind and why you react to things a certain way. Something I've been doing since I was a child, when I first realised I wasn't exactly normal (mental condition) and again when I realised my sexuality was quite different. I searched for my own answers and examined my own thoughts because I had no-one else but myself to do so with. I highly recommend more people do that, btw.
Examine your own biases and why they exist.
Challenge them and understand them.
No-one is perfect, no, but understanding yourself can help you move forward and become a more rounded person.
Never presume that what you know of yourself is true for others. Even if you share the same experiences there will be differences and you can never 100% know another person no matter how much they tell you about yourself (but that's just half the fun!).
You alluded to that being a default position for someone who was brought up from a certain kind of social environment and that as such they are unlikely to see what they do as transphobic... but they are. That's pretty much what you insinuated. And you may be right about that a lot of the time, but there are always going to be cases where that is not true.
I'll bet my left pinky that you were raised in a culture that was transphobic and have been exposed to transphobic ideas for decades. A few years of being friends with trans people or typing the words "I support them 100%" does not change that.
That sounds rather accusatory. 'You come from a transphobic culture so saying x doesn't change the fact you have transphobic ideals ingrained in you. You're transphobic, you just don't realise it.'
plus "I have friends from X group, therefore I can't possibly be X-ist/phobic" is like... that's a great way to open your mouth a mile wide for both feet to fit into.
And that is insinuating that my statement of having friends among such group means that I put my foot in my mouth.
As I said, while that can be true for a lot of people, not everyone is unaware of those hidden biases and have worked through them over their lives to get rid of them. There are always outliers and exceptions - in this case there are more and more every day as society slowly learns to get over those old prejudices, but if you only look for those who are of the first group, you might never find the ones who aren't and thus assume the world is built only one way.
Just to clarify a quote of mine posted above. I was referring to Max's "first contributions to this thread". When he was on-topic. Talking about how he approaches writing characters, and making some questions about the language used. That's all. I still maintain it was not cool to threaten him to be expelled from the discussion before he did anything wrong. And I don't see how me pointing that out is "jumping to the extreme ends of censorship" or anything. That did happen. I didn't make it up.
_
Anyway, I re-read YM's post, and I understand now why Solitayre took issue with it (I missed a crucial detail the first time I read it). My bad... He's probably still reading too much into it, though. I doubt anybody thinks he's going to start banning people left and right. Only that if enough people keep pushing for this "rules of engagement" thing, it could become a reality. In a world where interest groups can put enough pressure in order to have someone banned from a social media platform, all the way up to be barred entry to a country, I don't think that's too irrational a concern to have, is it? xP ...If he says that's not going to happen here, then that's cool. But then I have to wonder how exactly are the rules going to change, in a way that is satisfactory for those asking for said changes. =P
_
Anyway, I re-read YM's post, and I understand now why Solitayre took issue with it (I missed a crucial detail the first time I read it). My bad... He's probably still reading too much into it, though. I doubt anybody thinks he's going to start banning people left and right. Only that if enough people keep pushing for this "rules of engagement" thing, it could become a reality. In a world where interest groups can put enough pressure in order to have someone banned from a social media platform, all the way up to be barred entry to a country, I don't think that's too irrational a concern to have, is it? xP ...If he says that's not going to happen here, then that's cool. But then I have to wonder how exactly are the rules going to change, in a way that is satisfactory for those asking for said changes. =P
Let me clear it up for future interactions with me, personally: you will know when I think you are saying/doing something transphobic (or whatever else comes up). I will spell out in a giant text wall (see this earlier post) and I'll quote exactly what I'm objecting to and will tell you why I feel that way.
I go out of my way to avoid implying or insinuating things since I'm a big fan of direct communication, especially when talking about like, idk, "serious" topics.
idk if I can be more specific but here goes
Thing I object to:
You were talking with someone who is trans, who did not call you transphobic but was still arguing with you and outright said she felt you didn't understand what LGBT people experience.
Your response was about how hey, you did know b/c you fall under that umbrella. Alright, cool. That's true. But then you went on to reassure someone who did not accuse you of being transphobic that your response did not indicate you were transphobic or hated her because you have trans friends and support trans people 100%.
No one said you were being transphobic. Or if they did, I missed it.
You also claimed EletricalKat was insinuating that you were against LGBT people, which is also not what she said, for the record. Her claim was that you didn't understand it, which is not the same as saying you're a bigot.
I mean if you want my two cents on that interaction? This kind of inter-community politics is one of the reasons I don't use the word "queer" to refer to LGBTQIA+ people anymore and keep using the ever-growing alphabet soup label. This kind of inter-community bullshit is also why I don't put too much stock in the idea that there is a cohesive LGBT+ community, but instead we have very distinct groups with (sometimes) common shit they deal with. It'd be cool if those communities could work together in solidarity, but the reality is that oftentimes they don't, and thinking of them as a cohesive group can often sweep those issues under the rug.
I also am not a fan of when people try to lump the T issues into the LGB because there are such widespread problems of supposedly "accepting" lesbian or gay communities that are actively hostile to trans folks. Similarly, there's a lot of shit bi folks get from the L and the G and can you see where I'm coming from there? I'm not saying that you're doing anything like that right this moment, but I do think you won't understand trans issues the same way someone who is trans would, even though yes you do fall under the LGBT umbrella. This is not an accusation. I am not accusing you. This is only partially directed at you and is something I wanted to mention for the sake of anyone who happens to read this and might wonder why I'm all hackles raised about how you responded to EletricalKat here.
So let me reiterate: no one claimed you were transphobic. But when talking to someone who was trans you went out of your way to reassure her you were not transphobic because you have trans friends.
Anytime someone starts dropping their hypothetical friends to reassure someone they aren't going to do anything bigoted, it raises a red flag to me. It raised extra red flags because you're insisting you're not transphobic and talking about it as if this is some kind of personality trait or identity someone has.
So going back to what I actually said:
'You come from a transphobic culture so saying x doesn't change the fact you have transphobic ideals ingrained in you. You're transphobic, you just don't realise it.'
I did not say "saying x". I said that holding up your trans friends as proof you are not transphobic is not a good thing to do. I also said that it's better to think of potential bigotry as a process you can unlearn rather than a trait you have/don't have. Aside from that, yeah actually. I do think that pretty much everyone has internalized bs they might want to try and sort through, including transphobia.
This doesn't make them the scum of the earth, it makes them someone who had plenty of time and opporunity to learn shitty messages. Many times, people go through their lives without ever having to stop and question things like "what makes a woman a woman?" because they have the "obvious" answers they've heard their whole lives.
When you think of something like transphobia (or racism, or sexism, or ableism...you get the idea) as a trait someone has, when they're criticized for something they did or said it tends to feel like even more of a personal attack or that you're criticizing someone as a person. I don't think it's a stretch to say most people think of themselves as "basically good" and will go a long way to preserve that idea about themselves. And aruging the basic goodness or badness of a person hardly gets you anywhere in the long run, anyways.
So instead, I prefer to think about these things in terms of what people actually do. This is better with regards to me, personally, but also how I approach other people. When I think about myself, it's a lot easier to look at something I did/said/whatever and realize wow, maybe it wasn't that good. Why did I do that? How can I change this now that I'm aware of it? That kind of thinking is WAY LESS STRESSFUL than "if I said a Bad thing this means I'm a Bad Person".
can i like....can I clear that up anymore? Is this understandable? do I need to go on? You will know exactly what I'm hollerin about when I start hollerin
I am not hollering about you being transphobic rn, I'm hollerin about your use of trans friends to tell us you are not transphobic when no one said you were in the first place
I go out of my way to avoid implying or insinuating things since I'm a big fan of direct communication, especially when talking about like, idk, "serious" topics.
idk if I can be more specific but here goes
Thing I object to:
You were talking with someone who is trans, who did not call you transphobic but was still arguing with you and outright said she felt you didn't understand what LGBT people experience.
author = ElectricalKat
I don't think you understand what LGBT people experience if you really think saying what that poster said isn't supposed to construe as outright insulting.
Your response was about how hey, you did know b/c you fall under that umbrella. Alright, cool. That's true. But then you went on to reassure someone who did not accuse you of being transphobic that your response did not indicate you were transphobic or hated her because you have trans friends and support trans people 100%.
No one said you were being transphobic. Or if they did, I missed it.
author= Liberty
And Kat, when I said I'm flexi-sexual, that means I'm bi-sexual. As in part of LGBT. So, your insinuation that I'm somehow against it? Very, very wrong.
You also claimed EletricalKat was insinuating that you were against LGBT people, which is also not what she said, for the record. Her claim was that you didn't understand it, which is not the same as saying you're a bigot.
I mean if you want my two cents on that interaction? This kind of inter-community politics is one of the reasons I don't use the word "queer" to refer to LGBTQIA+ people anymore and keep using the ever-growing alphabet soup label. This kind of inter-community bullshit is also why I don't put too much stock in the idea that there is a cohesive LGBT+ community, but instead we have very distinct groups with (sometimes) common shit they deal with. It'd be cool if those communities could work together in solidarity, but the reality is that oftentimes they don't, and thinking of them as a cohesive group can often sweep those issues under the rug.
I also am not a fan of when people try to lump the T issues into the LGB because there are such widespread problems of supposedly "accepting" lesbian or gay communities that are actively hostile to trans folks. Similarly, there's a lot of shit bi folks get from the L and the G and can you see where I'm coming from there? I'm not saying that you're doing anything like that right this moment, but I do think you won't understand trans issues the same way someone who is trans would, even though yes you do fall under the LGBT umbrella. This is not an accusation. I am not accusing you. This is only partially directed at you and is something I wanted to mention for the sake of anyone who happens to read this and might wonder why I'm all hackles raised about how you responded to EletricalKat here.
So let me reiterate: no one claimed you were transphobic. But when talking to someone who was trans you went out of your way to reassure her you were not transphobic because you have trans friends.
Anytime someone starts dropping their hypothetical friends to reassure someone they aren't going to do anything bigoted, it raises a red flag to me. It raised extra red flags because you're insisting you're not transphobic and talking about it as if this is some kind of personality trait or identity someone has.
So going back to what I actually said:
'You come from a transphobic culture so saying x doesn't change the fact you have transphobic ideals ingrained in you. You're transphobic, you just don't realise it.'
I did not say "saying x". I said that holding up your trans friends as proof you are not transphobic is not a good thing to do. I also said that it's better to think of potential bigotry as a process you can unlearn rather than a trait you have/don't have. Aside from that, yeah actually. I do think that pretty much everyone has internalized bs they might want to try and sort through, including transphobia.
This doesn't make them the scum of the earth, it makes them someone who had plenty of time and opporunity to learn shitty messages. Many times, people go through their lives without ever having to stop and question things like "what makes a woman a woman?" because they have the "obvious" answers they've heard their whole lives.
When you think of something like transphobia (or racism, or sexism, or ableism...you get the idea) as a trait someone has, when they're criticized for something they did or said it tends to feel like even more of a personal attack or that you're criticizing someone as a person. I don't think it's a stretch to say most people think of themselves as "basically good" and will go a long way to preserve that idea about themselves. And aruging the basic goodness or badness of a person hardly gets you anywhere in the long run, anyways.
So instead, I prefer to think about these things in terms of what people actually do. This is better with regards to me, personally, but also how I approach other people. When I think about myself, it's a lot easier to look at something I did/said/whatever and realize wow, maybe it wasn't that good. Why did I do that? How can I change this now that I'm aware of it? That kind of thinking is WAY LESS STRESSFUL than "if I said a Bad thing this means I'm a Bad Person".
can i like....can I clear that up anymore? Is this understandable? do I need to go on? You will know exactly what I'm hollerin about when I start hollerin
I am not hollering about you being transphobic rn, I'm hollerin about your use of trans friends to tell us you are not transphobic when no one said you were in the first place
author=LibertyI'll bet my left pinky that you were raised in a culture that was transphobic and have been exposed to transphobic ideas for decades. A few years of being friends with trans people or typing the words "I support them 100%" does not change that.That sounds rather accusatory. 'You come from a transphobic culture so saying x doesn't change the fact you have transphobic ideals ingrained in you. You're transphobic, you just don't realise it.'
plus "I have friends from X group, therefore I can't possibly be X-ist/phobic" is like... that's a great way to open your mouth a mile wide for both feet to fit into.
And that is insinuating that my statement of having friends among such group means that I put my foot in my mouth.
As I said, while that can be true for a lot of people, not everyone is unaware of those hidden biases and have worked through them over their lives to get rid of them. There are always outliers and exceptions - in this case there are more and more every day as society slowly learns to get over those old prejudices, but if you only look for those who are of the first group, you might never find the ones who aren't and thus assume the world is built only one way.
With all due respect. You are taking what Pentagon stated the wrong way.
Unless you've lived in a society completely closed off from the rest of the world, institutionalized transphobia has been widespread for decades. Even if we've never openly stated hatred for trans (which I'm sure you haven't), there are things most societies subliminally embed within our minds that encourage the belief that transgender is wrong. For instance, why does anyone refer to their friends as their "trans friend" or "gay friend", as oppose to just "friend"? It's that act of singling people out which unintentionally perpetuates the flawed idea that being transgender isn't "normal," and that's hurtful.
Even if you really have gone beyond this, to get so defensive over what is really a simple fact that can be applied for almost everyone here, let alone go to great lengths to justify yourself is kind of pretentious. You might need to do some more self-examination yourself, and so does everyone else. It's not an attack.


















