I don't understand the term trans

[Rosiv]

Just because there is not any evidence for something does not mean it does not exist.

I'm afraid that form of reasoning is rarely a valid one.

The absence of evidence line of reasoning is not provable sadly, this i know. There will always be that case of, "well lets run one more test".

But, I think it is meant for a way for people to always continue to research their questions, which is good in a sense.

You should never stop researching and testing your results, for empirical evidence improves with more experimentation. It is in a researchers best interests for his data to continue research. Monetarily maybe not, but that is why we have research funding and all of the other events to fund them. Whether we should fund them is a matter of public opinion, or the opinion of donators i suppose. Or if gender is studied in the social sciences, I suppose they have to pay their own way, since they tend to get less research assistance financially.

I think the question, "when to stop researching?", could only be asked on a field that is considered bunk or not worth studying due to absurdities. Dianetics comes to mind as an example, sorry if that offended anyone as a Scientologist.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I don't see how saying you are "tolerant" of someone is in any way being an ally, sorry if I was not clear.

Which is why I didn't. Putting it in quotation marks doesn't mean I said it.

Frankly, I don't need you to approve whether or not I'm an ally. I am trans myself, at least by my own definition and that of the current medical establishment (albeit not by any definition which requires you to feel some deep identification with your brain or to to adhere to a gender binary). I've volunteered my time to LGBT organizations and actively pushed for greater inclusion of trans issues within LGBT activism. I don't have to agree with every word every other trans person has said, and I certainly don't have to let my own experience be erased from the whole discussion because it doesn't suit someone else's notion of what being trans is. Because if that's what an "alliance" means, it's not worth it for me.

Also, yeah biphobia, bi erasure and homonormativity in the LGBT community are bullshit, since that's what I was referring to in that specific example. I was pointing out that I can still count people who engage in these things as allies, if only in the limited sense that we share some collective goals. It doesn't mean I have to like them or their opinions.

Just because there is not any evidence for something does not mean it does not exist.

It doesn't mean we should assume it does.

There's no evidence that actual sea monsters exist. I think we can generally agree that while we can't rule out the existence of sea monsters, organizing expeditions to search for them simply isn't productive. Those expeditions may prove useful in some sense, because perhaps they'll find some interesting coral or new species of fish, but they're probably not going to be hugely useful because the people involved will be too busy looking for sea monsters. If we went in looking for the things we were likely to find, like coral and fish, we'd probably end up with more useful results.

If there are sea monsters, they'll show up with the coral and fish eventually, and once we find them the discovery itself will be more credible, because we'll be less likely to have to deal with the possibility that some fevered researcher saw a bit of floating wood and got overexcited.

Hypotheses are extremely dangerous. Almost all published research projects confirm their hypothesis, and that's something that really should not be happening.

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

I don't see how saying you are "tolerant" of someone is in any way being an ally, sorry if I was not clear.

Which is why I didn't. Putting it in quotation marks doesn't mean I said it.

Frankly, I don't need you to approve whether or not I'm an ally. I am trans myself, at least by my own definition and that of the current medical establishment (albeit not by any definition which requires you to feel some deep identification with your brain or to to adhere to a gender binary). I've volunteered my time to LGBT organizations and actively pushed for greater inclusion of trans issues within LGBT activism. I don't have to agree with every word every other trans person has said, and I certainly don't have to let my own experience be erased from the whole discussion because it doesn't suit someone else's notion of what being trans is. Because if that's what an "alliance" means, it's not worth it for me.

Also, yeah biphobia, bi erasure and homonormativity are bullshit, since that's what I was referring to in that specific example. I was pointing out that I can still count people who engage in these things as allies.

Just because there is not any evidence for something does not mean it does not exist.

It doesn't mean we should assume it does.

There's no evidence that actual sea monsters exist. I think we can generally agree that while we can't rule out the existence of sea monsters, organizing expeditions to search for them simply isn't productive. Those expeditions may prove useful in some sense, because perhaps they'll find some interesting coral or new species of fish, but they're probably not going to be hugely useful because the people involved will be too busy looking for sea monsters. If we went in looking for the things we were likely to find, like coral and fish, we'd probably end up with more useful results.

If you feel that on some deep psychological level you feel like a man or a woman and think that it somehow has to be more than a feeling, then I will always tolerate and accept that and try to be as sensitive as possible, but it isn't an experience I can relate to and thus I can't see it as something you can generalize to all of humanity.

That in post 80 was what I was referring to I guess. I just dont see why you would even use the concept of tolerance and acceptance in the same sentence. The notions are at odd. You do not really accept someone if you tolerate them. That be like if I as a landlord said to the black couple who came to live in my residence, "Well I will tolerate and respect you...." and after that I dont think it be much of a selling point.

And its not that I dont approve of you being an ally given what you had just stated. You have nothing to prove to me Evil, at least you have the courage to be out.

I just stand by the notion that allies dont "tolerate", that is what mother's do to noisy children, or really old senile grandparents who have a problem with those "latinos" in our restaurant.


edit:
As for the research discussion, I agree for the most part. But more so on the "never ruling anything out". Being productive is the researchers and people who fund the research issue i think, and if they want to still address the question of , lets say "sea monsters", looking for "coral" wouldn't be very much so.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

The fact is that most trans people are like most cis people, and that is relatively dumb and uneducated.

Yep

You need to know quite a bit, to really take an interest in human biology, to realize that our understanding of human neurobiology is primitive.

Very true. I personally completed a bachelor degree in biology, so I have some idea the depth of our ignorance. Of course, I specialized in genetics, inheritance, and expression of traits so I know more about our ignorance in that area.

Gender Dysmorphia probably is going to be a complex, multi-system dysfunction (not meant to offend) which creates the strong sense of being a "wrong gender", sometimes "no gender" and maybe even "other gender".

I agree. The extremely nuanced and varied expression of the conditions do not support the idea of simple causes.

That is the subjective experience, so why not have it be the objective reality? What you're saying, that it could be a matter of a "woman's" wiring in a "man's" body could be the case.

As I specifically said, I am not claiming the whole body map thing is the source. I was reading up on phantom limbs the other day and it seemed a convenient example of how there is plenty of room for non conflicting rhetoric if people are willing to accept that nuance is a possibility and stop with the damn slippery slope arguments.

My whole thing about physical causes was trying to convince people to stop thinking about the mind like magic attached to a mysterious ball of cells. If there is anything that is part of a mind it must necessarily have a corresponding physical cause. As you have suggested it doesn't have to be a single physical cause, it can (and likely is) a combination of many physical causes. And like I said, it does not have to be inherent. There does not even have to be a similar corresponding something in other brains, but it does have to be there in that brain.

More likely though, and simple is more likely with this kind of thing, it's a sense of wrongness. That wrong feeling gets interpreted a certain way, in light of the complex brains we have, which are formed by and filled with culture.

Entirely possible, but that really just sidesteps the issue. Edit: Meaning that we still have to ultimately consider people saying things like "ok, now is that feeling of wrongness nature or nurture?" and "is the reason it was interpreted as a gender issue nature or nurture?" Because in general people insist in think of expression of traits in entirely binary ways.

Now instead of a binary problem that suspiciously just looks like what trans people feel (and is generally "kind of said") you have a more fluid underlying issue. It's not like there is a "Gender center of the brain", more like the complex series of feedbacks which normally need to equal 0, suddenly equaling anything from -1 to 1. It's a range; of outcomes, subjective perceptions, and severity. In that sense, it's similar to body dysmorphia, which can take a staggering number of forms and degrees. There are people who amputate a limb without anesthetic, and often die as a result, because they have such a strong sense of it not belonging. To the brain, a limb is as a much a series of united concepts and tissues, as your genitals and physique.

Sounds about right. That is, in fact, consistent with how trans people express. Everyone is different.

It would also explain the increased gray matter that shows up on scans, which is provides that hyperconnectivity across normally isolated regions. I can't imagine that we'll have something like a treatment that a trans person would ever actually want in our lifetimes either. If I were trans (I'm not) I sure as shit wouldn't want some well meaning drugs or psychosurgery anytime soon. Frankly, it will probably be easier to functionally make someone a woman, maybe genetically female, than rewiring the brain. Which makes sense actually, as under-the-hood work should always be easier than CPU work.

I really don't know much about the whole increased grey matter stuff, I never bothered researching it. It really doesn't seem important to me.

As for potential cures, if it is ever even possible I wouldn't want it. If I could press a magic button and be fully and flawlessly transitioned in an instant I would. But if I was offered the chance to press a magic button that made me identify as a man I wouldn't.

 

[pookie101]

I can only speak from personal experience and frankly i dont have any contact with the transgender community and dont really give a rats ass about all the theories behind it.

Always knew from my earliest memories "me" didnt fit the body i was born into, found out around age 16 that you could actually do something about it, started transitioning around 21, had surgery around 26, never really bothered about it after that unless its brought up or questions are asked.

in the end you might not really understand it and its more than just liking 'girly" things, its who you fundamentally are, and its correcting a birth defect as far as im concerned

 

[Dizchu]

The best way to describe it is this; imagine you were born with 1 arm, would you believe you were some new species of human with only one arm or that you should get an artificial arm to replace the one you were never born with? A trans person is like this, they see their body as the wrong one and does not fit what their brain tells them on a subconcious level that they should be.

There have been many studies about trans people and there has been proof that the brain of, for example, a Male to female trans person is more like a female than male brain.

This is actually a pretty good analogy that I use from time to time. There's this suggestion that transgender people "just want to be special" or that "they have unreasonable feelings and expectations", yet people don't accuse amputees with prosthetic limbs that they're just doing it for attention or that they should accept being confined to a wheelchair.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

The best way to describe it is this; imagine you were born with 1 arm, would you believe you were some new species of human with only one arm or that you should get an artificial arm to replace the one you were never born with? A trans person is like this, they see their body as the wrong one and does not fit what their brain tells them on a subconcious level that they should be.

There have been many studies about trans people and there has been proof that the brain of, for example, a Male to female trans person is more like a female than male brain.

This is actually a pretty good analogy that I use from time to time. There's this suggestion that transgender people "just want to be special" or that "they have unreasonable feelings and expectations", yet people don't accuse amputees with prosthetic limbs that they're just doing it for attention or that they should accept being confined to a wheelchair.

The problem with comparisons to people with disabilities, being trans isn't like being an amputee, you can see the disability of an amputee. Trans is more like having debilitating arthritis, a disability you can't see. I happen to have that, I walk with a cane, people constantly question me about my cane, half the time they then accuse me of faking the need for a cane. This is despite me taking part of no special bumps to the front of lines and other such advantages offered to the disabled. Basically unless the issue is plainly visible, most people fail on a fundamental level to empathize. So yeah, being trans is like having chronic pain, people who don't have to deal with it themselves generally don't understand.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not cis though?

I didn't claim you were, though?

I don't identify with the gender that was assigned to me, and I have been attempting to reject the constraints of gender my whole life. I don't believe it does or ought to be a meaningful part of my identity. You are forcing it back on me, calling me cis, when I've never seen myself as a woman. That's my whole point.

Well, except I didn't do any of that.

First off, I didn't call you cis. Context is very important, and a big chunk of that came down to the argument from the other poster that "cis people feel that way." Second, you have yourself called yourself a woman before. I don't know how you see yourself, but this is specifically how you've presented on here. You know, the only way I have ever interacted with you. I mean, hell, I'll go on a tangent here, but I used to have a male username on here FFS. Despite identifying myself as a transwoman on this site for nearly a decade, I absolutely get why people think of me in male terms--even now, honestly. You've called yourself a woman and it's literally my only point of reference. If you're upset because I took you at face value, you probably shouldn't be.

But, and I repeat, I did not call you cis. I addressed an argument that said "cis people feel that way" or something to that effect that was in agreement with yours.

Third, I'm seriously curious as to what you mean by "constraints of gender." Nothing I've said correlates with anything along the lines of gender roles, or determines anything about a person specifically. The notion of brains with marked differences depending on gender doesn't therefore mean there's a portion of the brain obssessed with makeup and pink. Or home ec or whatever. Hell, if those things are at all relevant, then my brother's the girl and I'm a dude.

Except it doesn't work that way, and nothing about the notion of a gendered brain would change that. Even if it wasn't a relative abstraction in itself.

And fourth, being treated "like a woman" doesn't entail any of that, either. It simply means acknowledging someone's gender identity. You don't identify as a woman, so presumably you don't want to be called one and therefore you don't want to be treated as such.

I, on the other hand, was quite heartened to find people I chat with frequently altered their diction without fuss or fanfare. Or actually, even being asked. Because I'm grossly uncomfortable with that. But that's another issue. But, you see, that was the extent of it. Being treated "like a girl" changed nothing else. And other people in this thread addressed that as well, before your initial post.

You keep conflating these things with something that as far as I can tell are gender roles. You have used people saying something completely different as "proof."

Also, apparently rejecting the notion of strict genetic predeterminism undermines transgender people because that aspect of "choice" gives fodder to conservatives who want to use it against you. But you're pretending that "male" and "female" brains has no such implications? Does that not strike you as remotely hypocritical?

It strikes me as a strawman, since you're using arguments I'm not making to try and indicate that there is hypocrisy in my argument. I don't remember ever supporting the notion of "strict genetic determinism," for one. Weirdly enough, I would think that I break that and that you would know better based on past interactions. More importantly, the idea of a female brain in no way dictates anything else about me. That's roughly equivalent to saying that what I have, or what I "want" to have between my legs dictates who I am as a person. This is the third or fourth time I've made a similar point, and you keep ignoring this. I'm beginning to suspect you know that this argument is a non-starter.

A "female brain," whether strictly literal or not, ONLY becomes an issue of determinism if you stick to the same views that indicate your other body parts determine who you are. The ideas that say ovaries make you weaker than testicles, or that having a vagina means you like shopping and...whatever. I couldn't "girl it up" if I had a gun to my head. Again, if you want feminine-coded behaviour, you'll have to talk to my brother.

I feel like my body is wrong, and that I should have things which correspond to female physiology, culturally shorthanded as a "female body" or being a "woman." I'm not even, like, horribly attached to those labels as concepts except for the part where culturally, these are indicators of whether or not you are respected as the general category that corresponds with said identity.

The closest I can come to saying I believe in predeterminism is that, as far as I can tell, I was "born this way." I never made a choice to be trans, and if I could choose to simply not have an identity out of keeping with the body in which I was born, I would in a heartbeat. I view it as the easy way out, but fortunately, I'm a coward. Or maybe nearly being killed and actively being sexually assaulted multiple times does that to someone. I don't know. Or care. This is an element of me that appears to be indelible. But that's not strict genetic predeterminism.

So seriously, what position on gender do you have that could possibly be contradicted by someone who doesn't comply to gender norms or have any interest in the same? And why would a different brain be the thing that changes that? Hell, the only way I can see this being an argument against gender is if the desire to transition is also such a thing. But you called yourself an "ally," so I have trouble believing you think my desire for SRS somehow sets gender back.

But maybe it does, I don't know. I've tried to get answers, to figure out how this in any way harms whatever it is you're fighting for, but...I'm left with nothing but guesses.

 

[Something Amyss]

So yeah, being trans is like having chronic pain, people who don't have to deal with it themselves generally don't understand.

Well, yes. But you dismiss people on the same grounds, so it seems like effectively you are asking for more understanding than you afford others. Like the other poster in question, in fact. It would seem, based on these standards, that failure to understand or even antipathy towards trans people should be expected.

And I say this as someone with both gender dysphoria and the need to walk with a cane if I'm going more than a couple dozen feet. I'm not saying that such treatment is right, but I would infer from someone who conducts themselves in this fashion that they did feel it was right. The basic "do unto others" principle, in short.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

So yeah, being trans is like having chronic pain, people who don't have to deal with it themselves generally don't understand.

Well, yes. But you dismiss people on the same grounds, so it seems like effectively you are asking for more understanding than you afford others. Like the other poster in question, in fact. It would seem, based on these standards, that failure to understand or even antipathy towards trans people should be expected.

And I say this as someone with both gender dysphoria and the need to walk with a cane if I'm going more than a couple dozen feet. I'm not saying that such treatment is right, but I would infer from someone who conducts themselves in this fashion that they did feel it was right. The basic "do unto others" principle, in short.

Well when it comes to me I can get a bit despondent and apathetic when it comes to empathy, though I expect that comes from being burned a few too many times by people I have sympathized with. Though it's more apparent online, especially with people I don't know very well. At any rate, I don't expect more understanding than I afford others, but there is some bitterness in the fact that people find it fine to question me to death, but draw the line when I ask questions. So I've developed a bad habit of distancing myself. At any rate I'm also not very good at expressing myself, at least in text, and I have a short fuse when it comes to a multitude of things. That's all beside the point.

At least we can understand one and another on the need for a cane to walk more than a short distance, as well as over the mental specter that is gender dysphoria. I also understand and sympathize more than you might realize with how difficult others might have it. Might not like seem like it, but I do. I'm making a rather brash assumption here, but I assume that you've probably had a lot less opportunity to express yourself as you identify. Reading the post you made before the last, the part after you said you're a coward, that really kinda made me feel awful just reading it. I can't say I understand your experiences though, because I haven't experienced the same things you have, so I can't really frame such things.

But then again I'm not entirely sure what you're on about entirely, honestly...

 

[Dizchu]

The problem with comparisons to people with disabilities, being trans isn't like being an amputee, you can see the disability of an amputee. Trans is more like having debilitating arthritis, a disability you can't see. I happen to have that, I walk with a cane, people constantly question me about my cane, half the time they then accuse me of faking the need for a cane. This is despite me taking part of no special bumps to the front of lines and other such advantages offered to the disabled. Basically unless the issue is plainly visible, most people fail on a fundamental level to empathize. So yeah, being trans is like having chronic pain, people who don't have to deal with it themselves generally don't understand.

Yeah but the problem with chronic disabilities too is that most people can't really understand how it feels. There is so much stigma against young people with chronic disorders (insisting that they're lazy, unmotivated, etc.) that even then you need to compare it with more "obvious" disabilities. People generally find the idea of amputees easy to understand because it's so visible.

That's the trouble with explaining what it's like to be transgender to people, you need to find a very specific angle to describe it.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

The problem with comparisons to people with disabilities, being trans isn't like being an amputee, you can see the disability of an amputee. Trans is more like having debilitating arthritis, a disability you can't see. I happen to have that, I walk with a cane, people constantly question me about my cane, half the time they then accuse me of faking the need for a cane. This is despite me taking part of no special bumps to the front of lines and other such advantages offered to the disabled. Basically unless the issue is plainly visible, most people fail on a fundamental level to empathize. So yeah, being trans is like having chronic pain, people who don't have to deal with it themselves generally don't understand.

Yeah but the problem with chronic disabilities too is that most people can't really understand how it feels. There is so much stigma against young people with chronic disorders (insisting that they're lazy, unmotivated, etc.) that even then you need to compare it with more "obvious" disabilities. People generally find the idea of amputees easy to understand because it's so visible.

That's the trouble with explaining what it's like to be transgender to people, you need to find a very specific angle to describe it.

This is very true, it's even worse for people who are genderfluid, genderqueer, agender, and other gender variant people who don't fit into the binary assigned to trans women and trans men. When people talk about them just being attention seekers, especially knowing some people who identify genderqueer and genderfluid, who get constantly invalidated. Just as bad is how trans men have it, they're very invisible, when they become visible people treat them like they're invalid, especially because they were born female.

When it comes to comparing transgenderism to say an amputee, or someone born with a deformity, it does tend to make a better point to people. At the same time making such a comparison often brings in the argument: "Well having a deformity/being an amputee is a real thing, this transgender thing is just in your head!" Which can make explaining things that much harder. Though in my experience anyone willing to take that stance has made up their minds and won't change their stance even with solid scientific evidence. So... Sometimes the whole situation feels hopeless... At least that's how it hits me often enough.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

No disrespect to otherkin

HAH! Don't bother pulling punches. Treating those mind-addled psychopaths as sub-human isn't just appropriate, it's literally what they're asking for.

If they take offense, they do so from human understanding and perspective, and thus contradict their very ludicrous existence and claims- or they don't take offense, in which case no harm done.

They can be humans or animals, but they don't get to be both. Not like that.

I think that was rather uncalled for, especially because people say the exact same thing about trans folk. Just because someone identifies with animal traits doesn't make them actually an animal, and really treating any sub-human is pretty garbage behavior. Especially if you expect people to treat you with respect. In this case Amyss has a point with the "do unto others" idea, if you treat people sub-human, for any reason, you shouldn't expect any better treatment yourself. Not trying to be mean about it here, but that's only fair.

 

[manic_depressive13]

-

By any fair interpretation I think you very much did say that. By any fair reading you at least strongly implied that I am cis. You keep using certain language and then denying the meaning and implications of that language. It makes it kind of hard to argue.

I have called myself a woman because that is the label I've been given and that's how people treat me. I've never been particularly comfortable with that but I don't like any of the alternatives either. To say I'm "cis" though implies some sort of harmony and acceptance which I've never felt, and it makes me cringe just a little.

-

As far as I can tell you are arguing that whatever makes people trans, and causes them to identify with a certain gender, lies in the brain. That's something we can agree on.

However, you are characterising it in terms of "male and female" brains, which doesn't really reflect your argument, and then refusing to acknowledge the implications of that characterisation. You are using terminology coined by people who want to prove inherent differences between men and women, but trying to use it in a neutral fashion. As I said, my issue is with the rhetoric. I don't like arguments and explanations based on "male and female brains" because that kind of pseudoscience has been used, and continues to be used, to denigrate women. For example even today it is common for people to argue that people with "female brains" like dolls and babies and faces, while those with a "male brain" like toys with moving parts and machinery and electronics. They argue that this is just biology and we shouldn't fight it, and that the current distribution of genders between fields like engineering and nursing is just a reflection of natural difference which needn't be addressed.

That is all I am arguing. If we stopped characterising brains as "male" or "female", and simply acknowledged that some aspect of transgender people's brain chemistry causes them to identify with a different gender to what they were assigned. That this is normal, they have the right to treatment if they want it, and anyone who tries to treat them as lesser for that reason is scum- that's perfect. It's when right wing rhetoric about male and female brains starts to worm itself into the argument that I start to have serious issues.

And I know- "but no one is saying that!" Except they are, maybe not on purpose, by virtue of the language being used.

 

[Kingsman]

I think that was rather uncalled for, especially because people say the exact same thing about trans folk. Just because someone identifies with animal traits doesn't make them actually an animal, and really treating any sub-human is pretty garbage behavior. Especially if you expect people to treat you with respect. In this case Amyss has a point with the "do unto others" idea, if you treat people sub-human, for any reason, you shouldn't expect any better treatment yourself. Not trying to be mean about it here, but that's only fair.

Respect is earned, not given, dear, and you're wrong on several accounts:

Transfolk are NOT Furkin. I may be bigoted, but I am not irrational. I don't lump people in synonymous groups because of singular similarities. I freely admit a dislike for transexuality on a number of principles (although I don't begrudge any who at least acknowledge it's nothing to be proud of,) but I respect that any transsexual still identifies as human.

Beastkin don't get that pass. And make no mistake, these are not people "identifying with animal traits." People who identify with animal traits try to mimic the best parts of nature. A man who tries to be fast as a cheetah or strong as an ox can't be disparaged for his attempts to better himself. A furkin, however, doesn't identify with animal traits- they literally identify with being a different animal, trapped in a human body. It's objectively unhealthy, and anyone sympathizing with those so deluded is supporting madness.

And if I lose the respect of anyone on this site, I could honestly care less. It's my understanding most of you people are Aussie posters, which- as an east-coast American- means I will never meet, nor be consequential to, anyone here in my lifetime. I should've just ignored the conversation altogether, but frankly it gets SO sickening watching you people operate in your hug-box forums every time I come here to watch ZP or read the comics, it forced my hand.

Last reply gave me a warning, chances are I'll get another for this one. I've got two more responses before I get the boot for daring to disrupt the peace. Any comments?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Respect is earned, not given, dear, and you're wrong on several accounts:

Transfolk are NOT Furkin. I may be bigoted, but I am not irrational. I don't lump people in synonymous groups because of singular similarities. I freely admit a dislike for transexuality on a number of principles (although I don't begrudge any who at least acknowledge it's nothing to be proud of,) but I respect that any transsexual still identifies as human.

Beastkin don't get that pass. And make no mistake, these are not people "identifying with animal traits." People who identify with animal traits try to mimic the best parts of nature. A man who tries to be fast as a cheetah or strong as an ox can't be disparaged for his attempts to better himself. A furkin, however, doesn't identify with animal traits- they literally identify with being a different animal, trapped in a human body. It's objectively unhealthy, and anyone sympathizing with those so deluded is supporting madness.

And if I lose the respect of anyone on this site, I could honestly care less. It's my understanding most of you people are Aussie posters, which- as an east-coast American- means I will never meet, nor be consequential to, anyone here in my lifetime. I should've just ignored the conversation altogether, but frankly it gets SO sickening watching you people operate in your hug-box forums every time I come here to watch ZP or read the comics, it forced my hand.

Last reply gave me a warning, chances are I'll get another for this one. I've got two more responses before I get the boot for daring to disrupt the peace. Any comments?

Basic human dignity isn't earned, neither are rights like self expression.

Somehow you that whole argument against "trassexuality" sounds basically like the same line as "I don't hate gay people, but we shouldn't legitimize their lifestyle choice." Really saying that "being trans is nothing to be proud of" smacks of a person who enjoys the fact that most trans folk are actively taught to loathe themselves.

As for the otherkin argument, I know enough furry folk to know that most of what they do is about anthropomorphic animals as a fantasy ideal... That is they know it's a fantasy, they know it's not real, but that doesn't stop them from enjoying the fantasy. The ones I see get extremely defensive and start spewing spiritual identity ideas are the ones who get hammered on for being weird. My question is so what if they're weird? Everyone is weird in some way, or another, I'll never understand the torrent of demonization that people direct at others for being weird in different ways.

Also you're fairly off base, The Escapist started as a primarily American gaming magazine, most of the people I encounter on these forums are Americans and Canadians. Sure there are lots of Australians, but we get people posting here from all over the world, heck at least two very active posters are Israeli. Also I don't see the escapist as a this "hug-box" you say that you see. I see lots of disagreements, including ones that frame vehement political divides. There are rules about not being a jerk on these forums and to keep discussions civil though, if that means "hug-box" to you, then I'd hate to see what you must consider proper discourse.

What the fuck? So what? People call trans folks sacks of shit, but guess what, I can still call Neo Nazis sacks of shit. The fact that one group was called something unfairly, doesn't mean that I can't call another group that same thing, fairly. "My group was hurt by that language, so the language is in and of itself bad" is pretty much what the hysterics mean when they rave about SJW's. Please try to be less of a stereotype.

First off, comparing otherkin, or furries to Neo-Nazis is a more than a little bit of a stretch, seeing as how otherkin don't champion the ideas of killing off people for things like skin color and sexual preference. Second otherkin don't use themselves to invalidate trans folk, transphobes use other in a shallow attempt to invalidate trans folk. I'm not prepared to demonize a group that's not actively hurting others while pursuing their interests, even though I find those interests extremely silly and odd. I am willing to say that saying shitty things about an essentially harmless group that's just doing their own thing and trying not bother others with it, is a bit over the line.

The point is I don't understand otherkin, I also don't really care what they're on about, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shit on them for pursuing their own personal interests.

 

[Silvanus]

Embrace away, but you're hugging an adder.

Well, only the ones who identify as Adders.


...I'll see myself out.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-I didn't compare Otherkin to Nazis. I compared decreeing language that had been against one group, "Bad", and therefore bad to use against any other group. Any comments? I still think it's crazy to say "They called us monsters, so don't call them monsters!" Ok, but what if they're monsters? People think that trans people are perverts or "making a choice" or weird, and they're wrong and unfair in that. Those same things however, do actually apply very well (perverted being debatable) to Otherkin. The hurtful and wrong use of language in one application is not a strike against the language itself. Are we on the same page with this? Did you not understand what I wrote, or did you prefer not to actually respond to it directly?

You used Neo-Nazis as a stand in for Otherkin, meaning you put them in the same category, that looks like a pretty direct comparison to me. Still I'll let that slide, because apparently you didn't mean to compare the two groups.

Still one group calling another group monsters is shit flinging, that second group responding by only calling the first group monsters too is also shit flinging. Language works a lot in context. If one group calls another a name, the other group responding by doing the exact same thing isn't an improvment, it's sinking to their level. For instance if I just call Mike Huckabee a pervert because he said all trans folk are perverts, that's not making a point, that's just throwing the same insult back. On the other hand saying that the way Mike Huckabee framed his position, by saying what pervert things he'd do if he were allowed to say he felt like a woman, then calling the trans community perverts allows me to say something like this: "What he said applies to him, not the trans community, all he did was prove that he's a pervert who'd misuse rules designed to protect a marginalized minority for his own personal perversions." That's different than just saying he's a pervert in retaliation.

-So what if they don't do it themselves? Rachel Dolezal didn't try to use herself to undermine black folks, and yet predictably she did. Selfish, obsessive behavior without regards for consequences is WRONG. Otherkin, by framing "The shit they like to do" as a spiritual or medical issue, ARE drawing that comparison whether they mean to or not. Embrace away, but you're hugging an adder.

-Rachel Dozelzal knew for a fact that she was born to a white family, no matter what justification she weakly threw up, she still took a minority deal even though she's white. Nothing she did can be defended as "she didn't mean to", because she still appropriated black culture and misused a program for the underprivileged, and she did it all by lying out her ass. That goes far beyond "identifying" with black folk.

-In my experience the ones that use otherkin as a direct analogue to trans folk, bigots. The ones who latch on in obsession are teenagers who latched on to something because they feel like out casts, then they go make tumblr blogs to get validation. We all did stupid shit and had stupid obsessions when we were teenagers and some never grow out of that. I'm not embracing them, but not embracing them doesn't mean I have to turn around and vilify the entire community for a few idiots either. Dressing in fur suits and gathering with those of like minds is not selfish, obsessive behavior with no regards to others. Neither is having a fursona, or drawing furry art. That's the majority of the community right there it's people who do their thing, some for sexual reasons, others for non-sexual reasons, but who aren't trying to make it their daily lives.

-So what we have here is a loud minority of a group saying probably stupid things, that's not justification to vilify a whole community. Here are a pair of direct comparisons: This is the same idea as taking crossdressers who crossdress for sexual pleasure and using them as the example of what the entire trans community is. The loud minority of spiritual/medical issue otherkin are very much like trans folk who say you can only be trans if you have had, or plan to have sexual reassignment surgery, then spew bile at trans folk who don't want to, or can't transition. More bluntly it's like using Zoey Tur as a good example of a trans person, who is basically analogous to what an uncle tom is to the black community.

-Demonize? I'm not demonizing them.

-You did basically just classify them all as having a dangerous obsession. You also did basically set the standard as; either you call them awful things, or you're embracing them. That might not be what you meant, but it's what it looks like.

-Interests or obsession? There's a difference.

-How about hobby? Since that's what it is for the majority of their community. We don't say people who spend extraordinary amounts of time indulging in building model towns for train sets, playing video games, or making hand made costumes have an obsession. Yet that's what model train buffs, gamers, and cosplayers do.

-They stopped trying to "do their own thing" when they got political.

-Again that's the loud minority. Also a lot of the ones who get political are also the ones who get called things like "sick freaks" on a regular basis. That is the political bullshit came to them not the other way at all.

-That's a special way of framing it, that I don't agree with at all.

-I'm not sure what the take away from that is...

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Embrace away, but you're hugging an adder.

Well, only the ones who identify as Adders.


...I'll see myself out.

I wonder how many "reptile-kin" there are? Most "otherkin" seem to be mammals, mostly foxes, dogs, wolves, tigers, and other sight/scent-oriented predators. I get that joke though, good, I just wonder if there is any room for "Furry" without the "fur".

There are actually plenty such folk, reptiles are popular in the furry community, not as much as foxes, felines, canines, horses and rabbits, but they're still popular enough. That's regardless of weather or not you count the dragon-kin types in the community too.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-I didn't compare Otherkin to Nazis. I compared decreeing language that had been against one group, "Bad", and therefore bad to use against any other group. Any comments? I still think it's crazy to say "They called us monsters, so don't call them monsters!" Ok, but what if they're monsters? People think that trans people are perverts or "making a choice" or weird, and they're wrong and unfair in that. Those same things however, do actually apply very well (perverted being debatable) to Otherkin. The hurtful and wrong use of language in one application is not a strike against the language itself. Are we on the same page with this? Did you not understand what I wrote, or did you prefer not to actually respond to it directly?

You used Neo-Nazis as a stand in for Otherkin,]

No, I didn't. If you don't understand how a comparison works, and what the subject of a comparison is (the language, not the group) then you're hopeless. If this is your version of rhetoric, I'm already bored.

Well considering the first thing that came up, when I mentioned the rhetoric being used was overly harsh, was this:

What the fuck? So what? People call trans folks sacks of shit, but guess what, I can still call Neo Nazis sacks of shit.

That point falls flat as far as I can see, because the first thing that came up in relation to the subject were Neo-Nazis.

That's beside the fact, because I specifically said I'd take your word for it that you didn't mean to directly compare the two. It's still the first thing you used to make your point in calling one group something unfairly, doesn't mean it can be applied fairly to another group. That is a comparison because you substituted Neo-Nazis for Otherkin to make a point. Also if the rhetoric you're gonna use is snipping the very start of a post to strawman the entire post, well then I agree. I think we're done here.