![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
via http://ift.tt/2t4vNWR:
katblaque:
opposition-research:
thesocialjusticecourier:
katblaque:
TRUE TEA: What do you think about Truscum?
[Full Video Here]
SUBSCRIBE to Kat Blaque : http://bit.ly/1D3jwSF
It really has nothing to do with being a gatekeeper, @katblaque. The reason a lot of trans people are concerned with whether or not someone is experiencing dysphoria isn’t as a way to determine whether or not they’re “legitimately” trans or “authentically” trans - it’s because these people who don’t experience dysphoria literally have a very different concept of what it is to be trans and shouldn’t be allowed to speak for all of us. A person that identifies as trans but doesn’t experience dysphoria is going to have a completely different definition of what it is to be trans and that definition is not going to line up with trans people who live their lives with and experience a constant gender dysphoria.
Their appropriation of our terminology and our condition/state of being whatever you want to call it as trans people is actively harming the way we are perceived by people who don’t know a lot about trans issues. It’s actively harming our ability to transition and our safety by making relations with cisgendered people, even those within the LGBT community more strained. People who claim they’re trans without experiencing dysphoria are a lot like the Rachel Dolezal’s of the trans world; they want all the perceived “perks” of being trans without actually having to experience what it is we go through and what we live with.
@thesocialjusticecourier Speaking as one of those people, you’re correct in the narrow view that trans people who do not have dysphoria have a different concept of what it is to be trans than you.
You are incorrect in that you presume we want to speak for you or that our definition does not contain yours.
Transness is nebulous and ambiguous. There is more than one way to be trans. Being trans and experiencing dysphoria is one such way. Being trans and no longer experiencing dysphoria because you’ve begun transition/have transitioned is another. Being trans and not having begun transition is another. Being trans and not being interested in transition is another. None of these are more or less of a priority than the rest.
The moment you use the word ‘appropriation’ you are making a gatekeeping argument. The moment you bring up Rachel Dolezal you are implying that some people are faking their identity. It is impossible to make that argument without necessarily implying that some people call theirselves trans when they shouldn’t, and asserting yourself as an authority on who they are. You can say that it has nothing to do with gatekeeping, and maybe you can even believe it, but the fact remains that your argument assumes as part of its foundation that there is one true way to be trans. You can’t turn people away from the city without keeping the gate.
The argument from perception, however unintentionally, makes the common mistake of legitimizing the transphobe’s argument. Many transphobic people tell all trans people they’re faking, that they’re appropriating terms they shouldn’t, that they want the ‘perks’ of being something without knowing what it’s like to be that thing. You might recognize it if I swap ‘transness’ with ‘sex’. It’s the TERF party line.
And the counterargument to this is ‘yes, but not all of us’?
And you think this helps your chances of becoming recognized as valid?
I keep becoming reminded of an admittedly problematic joke that I’m going to adapt for this situation: Person A walks up to person B and asks them if they would do something for five dollars. Person B says no. Person A then raises the hypothetical price to ten million dollars. Person B thinks about it, and says yes. Person A says, what about twenty dollars, and person B, indignant, says ‘what kind of person do you think I am?’
Person A replies, ‘We’ve established what kind of person you are. Now we’re just haggling over the price.’
The TERF argument wants to see all trans people violently eradicated. Your argument merely wants to see some trans people violently eradicated. All you’re doing is haggling over the price.
I don’t care how special-snowflake tumblrina nondysphoric made-up-gender bunself-pronouned you are, you get through the gate, because we do not tell people how to experience their own gender. I don’t care how beneficial it seems to throw vulnerable members of our group under the bus — and they are vulnerable, so vulnerable that we’re not even in agreement that they deserve our help, let alone what cis people will do to them on top of that — in exchange for more safety or security or whatever benefit you think we might get from it.
Because again, you’re just haggling over the price. And if we do throw this contingent of trans people under the bus, guess what, we still have one group that wants to eradicate all trans people, and they’ve partially succeeded, and the new group is going to have a vulnerable radical fringe to attack next. If you shave off the bunself-pronoun-users, you still have general nondysphorics. If you shave off the nondysphorics, you still have nonbinary people. If you shave them off, you just have binary, dysphoric, trans people. Eventually, perhaps, gay and lesbian organizations don’t feel so bad about dropping the T from their support, and we’re out in the wilderness. The group of acceptable trans people gets smaller and easier to ignore, oppress, and control.
And you’re probably looking at that and going, hey, wait, I wouldn’t want to go that far. And you’re right. You don’t want to go that far. They do. The TERFs and transphobes of the world, the ones you’re trying to appease. They do.
And you’re helping them get what they want.
Think about that for a moment, will you? Think about what it really means to accept the premise that some trans people are fakers appropriating their identity.
And then name your price.
This is such a well written response that I cosign completely.
katblaque:
opposition-research:
thesocialjusticecourier:
katblaque:
TRUE TEA: What do you think about Truscum?
[Full Video Here]
SUBSCRIBE to Kat Blaque : http://bit.ly/1D3jwSF
It really has nothing to do with being a gatekeeper, @katblaque. The reason a lot of trans people are concerned with whether or not someone is experiencing dysphoria isn’t as a way to determine whether or not they’re “legitimately” trans or “authentically” trans - it’s because these people who don’t experience dysphoria literally have a very different concept of what it is to be trans and shouldn’t be allowed to speak for all of us. A person that identifies as trans but doesn’t experience dysphoria is going to have a completely different definition of what it is to be trans and that definition is not going to line up with trans people who live their lives with and experience a constant gender dysphoria.
Their appropriation of our terminology and our condition/state of being whatever you want to call it as trans people is actively harming the way we are perceived by people who don’t know a lot about trans issues. It’s actively harming our ability to transition and our safety by making relations with cisgendered people, even those within the LGBT community more strained. People who claim they’re trans without experiencing dysphoria are a lot like the Rachel Dolezal’s of the trans world; they want all the perceived “perks” of being trans without actually having to experience what it is we go through and what we live with.
@thesocialjusticecourier Speaking as one of those people, you’re correct in the narrow view that trans people who do not have dysphoria have a different concept of what it is to be trans than you.
You are incorrect in that you presume we want to speak for you or that our definition does not contain yours.
Transness is nebulous and ambiguous. There is more than one way to be trans. Being trans and experiencing dysphoria is one such way. Being trans and no longer experiencing dysphoria because you’ve begun transition/have transitioned is another. Being trans and not having begun transition is another. Being trans and not being interested in transition is another. None of these are more or less of a priority than the rest.
The moment you use the word ‘appropriation’ you are making a gatekeeping argument. The moment you bring up Rachel Dolezal you are implying that some people are faking their identity. It is impossible to make that argument without necessarily implying that some people call theirselves trans when they shouldn’t, and asserting yourself as an authority on who they are. You can say that it has nothing to do with gatekeeping, and maybe you can even believe it, but the fact remains that your argument assumes as part of its foundation that there is one true way to be trans. You can’t turn people away from the city without keeping the gate.
The argument from perception, however unintentionally, makes the common mistake of legitimizing the transphobe’s argument. Many transphobic people tell all trans people they’re faking, that they’re appropriating terms they shouldn’t, that they want the ‘perks’ of being something without knowing what it’s like to be that thing. You might recognize it if I swap ‘transness’ with ‘sex’. It’s the TERF party line.
And the counterargument to this is ‘yes, but not all of us’?
And you think this helps your chances of becoming recognized as valid?
I keep becoming reminded of an admittedly problematic joke that I’m going to adapt for this situation: Person A walks up to person B and asks them if they would do something for five dollars. Person B says no. Person A then raises the hypothetical price to ten million dollars. Person B thinks about it, and says yes. Person A says, what about twenty dollars, and person B, indignant, says ‘what kind of person do you think I am?’
Person A replies, ‘We’ve established what kind of person you are. Now we’re just haggling over the price.’
The TERF argument wants to see all trans people violently eradicated. Your argument merely wants to see some trans people violently eradicated. All you’re doing is haggling over the price.
I don’t care how special-snowflake tumblrina nondysphoric made-up-gender bunself-pronouned you are, you get through the gate, because we do not tell people how to experience their own gender. I don’t care how beneficial it seems to throw vulnerable members of our group under the bus — and they are vulnerable, so vulnerable that we’re not even in agreement that they deserve our help, let alone what cis people will do to them on top of that — in exchange for more safety or security or whatever benefit you think we might get from it.
Because again, you’re just haggling over the price. And if we do throw this contingent of trans people under the bus, guess what, we still have one group that wants to eradicate all trans people, and they’ve partially succeeded, and the new group is going to have a vulnerable radical fringe to attack next. If you shave off the bunself-pronoun-users, you still have general nondysphorics. If you shave off the nondysphorics, you still have nonbinary people. If you shave them off, you just have binary, dysphoric, trans people. Eventually, perhaps, gay and lesbian organizations don’t feel so bad about dropping the T from their support, and we’re out in the wilderness. The group of acceptable trans people gets smaller and easier to ignore, oppress, and control.
And you’re probably looking at that and going, hey, wait, I wouldn’t want to go that far. And you’re right. You don’t want to go that far. They do. The TERFs and transphobes of the world, the ones you’re trying to appease. They do.
And you’re helping them get what they want.
Think about that for a moment, will you? Think about what it really means to accept the premise that some trans people are fakers appropriating their identity.
And then name your price.
This is such a well written response that I cosign completely.
