Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

The idea that the LGBTQ+ community is a homogenous, monolithic organisation with no variation of opinion or attitude is both total garbage and deeply offensive, but it's a common mistake

Heck, I’ve even chatted with a Trans person who did not believe in non-binary! So, education is lacking on all sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day the OP is just one other person whining that SL doesn't work the way they think it should.

The usual response of people in here is "suck it up buttercup" but the OP claims staus as a persecuted minority so of course everyone is expected to validify their complaint.

I did learn one thing new though, I thought a trans guy was genetic male that felt they were female when apparently its a genetic female that feels they are male.

And vice versa of course.

The OP does have one thing in common with so many other advocates. They think their opinion and their voice is the only one that counts.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Heck, I’ve even chatted with a Trans person who did not believe in non-binary! So, education is lacking on all sides.

perhaps sex, like race is a bogus concept and we should remove it as an identifer. Instead of labeling people as male or female we should ask everyone, how do you gender identify today.

Its too bad about that pesky XX XY thing though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:
14 hours ago, OfDragonFire said:

If you are just here to be rude

Basically that is why they are here.

That is pretty presumptuous - assuming that you know why others are posting here.

 

Why is it that as soon as someone posts something that does not get 100% of full agreement, then the poster is being attacked?  Forums are a place for DISCUSSION and discussion often contains many points of view within a large spectrum of agreement to disagreement.  Posting differing points of view or even differing interpretations of someone's remarks does not specifically indicate rudeness or attacking. 

When others say that the OP's posts and profile give the impression of aggression and controversy, they are rebuffed and told that they are the ones attacking.  Why is the OP's interpretation of others' written words valid, but others are not allowed their interpretation of the OP's words.   If someone gets to read my words and decide whether those words are nice, mean, rude, attacking, or any other interpretation, then I should be allowed to decide the same of their words and express how I interpret them.

Nowhere in this entire thread did I ever see anyone write that the OP's ideas were bad or that the OP was bad.  Yet the OP makes reference to that multiple times.  That tells me that the OP is reading this thread through the filter of their past persecutions and simply assuming that bad things are being said or intended unless they are in total agreement with everything the OP posted.  When we go through life always assuming that every single statement that is not 100% aligned with our viewpoint is some sort of attack, we will continue to feel victimized.  We have to stop assuming that every disagreement is an attack.

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

That is pretty presumptuous - assuming that you know why others are posting here.

I was referring to an individual..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I was referring to an individual..

And "they" without a clear context indicates a group of people. I too read your words as refering to everyone in this thread, especially because the OP felt attacked by almost everyone and not just a single, obvious person.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Syo Emerald said:

And "they" without a clear context indicates a group of people. I too read your words as refering to everyone in this thread, especially because the OP felt attacked by almost everyone and not just a single, obvious person.

Sorry..if I copied the original quote it would have looked like an attack. If you read what was quoted and see who was being responded to..you will see who it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I was referring to an individual..

I still never saw a single post that seemed to be "intentionally" rude.

 

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Sorry..if I copied the original quote it would have looked like an attack. If you read what was quoted and see who was being responded to..you will see who it is.

Even the one that the OP quoted when making that statement.  The quoted person even specifically said that they were not trying to start a fight and simply stated their assumptions/knowledge about something and asked a question.

 

Just because the quoted person is often confrontational in threads, does not mean that every post they make is intentionally so.  If we ASSUME otherwise, then we are being no better.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Syo Emerald said:

And "they" without a clear context indicates a group of people. 

This should not be the case: context of Trans discussion, many people prefer the pronoun “they”; it is also a polite way to refer to an individual if you do not know their gender. It is no longer “assumed” to mean multiple people. Just in case you didn’t know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

The quoted person even specifically said that they were not trying to start a fight and simply stated their assumptions/knowledge about something and asked a question.

As a Trans ally, I thought their statements were rude. “Why do you need to be Trans in here, etc.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

As a Trans ally, I thought their statements were rude. “Why do you need to be Trans in here, etc.”

Or, if one isn't always assuming that those of us that don't know much about that world are just being rude or attacking, then it might have been interpreted as a legitimate question.

As in:  SL lets you be whatever you want.  Even if you were born female, you can create a male avatar and be male here.  Thus, why do you have to specially be a "Trans male" here?  i.e. I iz dumb about this, please tell me / explain.

I understand that the LGBT people have been persecuted for a long time and still are in a lot of areas.  But there are also many of us that are not attacking people, but truly do not grasp all of the intricacies of things, and ask questions out of a true lack of understanding and knowledge.  I personally think that many of the perceived attacks are just that - perceived.  The community is so used to being attacked that they just flat assume every statement that lacks total understanding is an attack.

In other words, change in perception and viewpoints needs to happen on both sides.

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

That is pretty presumptuous - assuming that you know why others are posting here.

 

Why is it that as soon as someone posts something that does not get 100% of full agreement, then the poster is being attacked?  Forums are a place for DISCUSSION and discussion often contains many points of view within a large spectrum of agreement to disagreement.  Posting differing points of view or even differing interpretations of someone's remarks does not specifically indicate rudeness or attacking. 

When others say that the OP's posts and profile give the impression of aggression and controversy, they are rebuffed and told that they are the ones attacking.  Why is the OP's interpretation of others' written words valid, but others are not allowed their interpretation of the OP's words.   If someone gets to read my words and decide whether those words are nice, mean, rude, attacking, or any other interpretation, then I should be allowed to decide the same of their words and express how I interpret them.

Nowhere in this entire thread did I ever see anyone write that the OP's ideas were bad or that the OP was bad.  Yet the OP makes reference to that multiple times.  That tells me that the OP is reading this thread through the filter of their past persecutions and simply assuming that bad things are being said or intended unless they are in total agreement with everything the OP posted.  When we go through life always assuming that every single statement that is not 100% aligned with our viewpoint is some sort of attack, we will continue to feel victimized.  We have to stop assuming that every disagreement is an attack.

This is, I think, the primary cause for dissipation of the "blue wave" in the US mid-term elections. The reds are already seeing red, and if they can get the blues to see red, red wins.

ETA: In RL discussions with neighbors, the reddest of my friends thinks I'm blue, and the bluest of my friends thinks I'm red. I, however, think I'm right. ;-).

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

Thus, why do you have to specially be a "Trans male" here?

By asking the question, one fair assumption is that the asker would prefer not to deal with Trans people discussing their identity. There is a thing called “Trans Pride”. And, in a couple weeks we commemorate Trans Day of Remembrance - for all those Trans people murdered this year. And, the current administration wants to erase Trans people by requiring only birth gender.

To sum it up: Trans visibility is important. One of many reasons to “be Trans in here”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phorumities said:

perhaps sex, like race is a bogus concept and we should remove it as an identifer. Instead of labeling people as male or female we should ask everyone, how do you gender identify today.

Its too bad about that pesky XX XY thing though.

How about XXX, XXY, XYY, and XO? (not going to type out all the permutations of having 4 or 5 sex chromosomes.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders

Not to mention that some of the most feminine women you'll ever see were born with XY chromosomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

To sum it up: Trans visibility is important. One of many reasons to “be Trans in here”.

And that is a fair and proper response. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that as those of us outside of that community educate ourselves, we will inevitably phrase things wrong.  If it is ALWAYS ASSUMED that we are intentionally being rude or attacking, neither side will really gain anything.  As we have told OPs repeatedly in this forum -- do not always ASSUME that something is an attack.  That holds true regardless of the topic -- whether it is a sensitive one or not.

Now, if you or the OP or anyone else had given the above response right away and then if the original person had come back with insisting on their point of view, then you could consider that they are just being rude or antagonistic.  However, making that assumption right up front does not benefit any cause and skips right over the chance to educate someone.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

By asking the question, one fair assumption is that the asker would prefer not to deal with Trans people discussing their identity. There is a thing called “Trans Pride”. And, in a couple weeks we commemorate Trans Day of Remembrance - for all those Trans people murdered this year. And, the current administration wants to erase Trans people by requiring only birth gender.

To sum it up: Trans visibility is important. One of many reasons to “be Trans in here”.

I get this response from RL friends. They don't want anyone throwing pride in their face. "I don't go around expressing pride in my heterosexuality!" Never mind that they absolutely do. US culture is dripping with heterosexual pride.

As Li'l says, perspective matters. You're not going to make a lot of progress if you don't understand the other person's perspective... and your own.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Now, if you or the OP or anyone else had given the above response right away 

The title “Trans people, assemble” is basically a clear call for visibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

However, making that assumption right up front does not benefit any cause and skips right over the chance to educate someone.

Sorry, the issues being discussed are difficult to explain. We hold seminars and forums to educate our community..it can take years to understand in fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The title “Trans people, assemble” is basically a clear call for visibility. 

There you go again in assuming that everyone interprets a phrase the same way.  It is not a CLEAR CALL to me.  I see the phrase, in and of itself, as a "call to arms", so to speak.

 

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

  We hold seminars and forums to educate our community..it can take years to understand in fact. 

Which is exactly why you cannot assume that all of us idiots are simply being rude and attacking just because we do not yet understand everything.  Yes, it can be extremely frustrating when we don't GET IT, but that doesn't mean we are being dense on purpose or making stupid statements intentionally.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Heck, I’ve even chatted with a Trans person who did not believe in non-binary! So, education is lacking on all sides.

Anecdote time (soz for derail):

A transitioned trans guy I lived near at university argued that considering gender as a spectrum completely undermined his trans identity. He knows that he is a man born inside the body of a woman, that the gender switch was flipped the wrong way. As far as he is concerned, that is a fact and not an opinion. The metaphorical coin landed on heads, and so through hormones, surgery and lifestyle choices he turned that coin to show tails. His body used to be wrong, but now it is right - and he comes across as a "traditional" man, you wouldn't have guessed that he was trans unless he chose to tell you.

He sees the logical conclusion of seeing gender as a spectrum as the invalidation of that journey. If there are no more set points but instead a constant spectrum, then how could his pre-transition state of being a man but presenting as a woman (with or without clothing) be wrong? And if his pre-transition state was valid, then how can his journey be justified? It reduced his transition down to vain plastic surgery, no different to a "traditional" cis-woman getting a boob job or a nose job out of vanity, rather than the necessity he has always considered it to be.

I don't really agree with him, but I didn't know how to argue that point to him logically then. I struggled with how to phrase things without invalidating his own experiences. He always treated non-binary people with respect, he never let his thoughts on the matter influence his actions, so I never felt that saying "no you're wrong... just because" was even slightly appropriate. We just agreed to disagree and left it at that, but it's always been intriguing for me.

Side note that's relevant to this topic: he doesn't see himself as a trans man. He sees himself as what he is; a man. He said that the term "trans man" implies that he is not and has not always been a man. He saw no reason to be proud of his trans identity; because he is not proud of his old self, his old self was not representative of who he is. He's proud of his present self, of the man he has always been but not always been perceived to be. If he were to join SL, he'd almost certainly be a man with no hint of the word trans mentioned anywhere, because that's what he is - a man.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The title “Trans people, assemble” is basically a clear call for visibility. 

It is to those, that are already aware and in the mindset that you described in yout post. Then its possible to make that connection. If you don't come across the topic in Social Media and have no deep real life contact to people in the community, you can perfectly exist without ever encountering anything related to what goes on in the US (for example...at least thats how it is for us outside the country). Someone reading the headline can simply read it as the usual "finding like-minded people with the same background", instead of a call for visibility.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

There you go again in assuming that everyone interprets a phrase the same way.  It is not a CLEAR CALL to me.  I see the phrase, in and of itself, as a "call to arms", so to speak.

I actually think it’s interesting how others focused on the “Avengers” reference and language used. While, I ignored all that. As Maddy said..it’s all perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

He sees the logical conclusion of seeing gender as a spectrum as the invalidation of that journey.

The interesting thing about this is, denying a gender spectrum can invalidate those who are not clearly in the one or other gender. Perspective again, hard to speak for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...