• treefrog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s not about it being an insult. It’s about being skeptical of the existence of trans people and using language to affect our very real material conditions, like access to healthcare or using bathrooms we feel safe in.

    Assigned sex at birth is both more accurate, and more inclusive.

    • nomous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Hey look the firing squad is starting to bend in towards itself.

      We gotta make sure we use the right words before we can even begin to have a productive conversation, if those words change every 6 months that’s just too bad, use the current one or you’re a bigot.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I didn’t call anyone a bigot. In fact I took that comment as a good faith question and answered in good faith.

        Who’s turning the firing squad around? The trans people trying to educate? Or the ‘allies’ who would prefer not to listen?

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Who’s turning the firing squad around? The trans people trying to educate? Or the ‘allies’ who would prefer not to listen?

          “Leftists” as usual, clearly.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why would you assume I’m skeptical that trans people exist?

      I’m skeptical of proposed solutions, but I am with anything. Put another way, I know the problem is real, but I wouldnt say the causes or solutions are well understood.

      Additionally I’m concerned with the social pressure that is put on people to shut up and accept whatever a trans person tells you. That makes me skeptical that people are arguing unbiased.

      Lastly, I dont like that we seem to be pushing ahead without proper scientific review (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/health/aap-gender-affirming-care-evidence-review.html).

      I really hope we have all guessed right already, and I understand some might feel they have run out of time, but to me theres a lot of unanswered or unsatisfyingly answered questions.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I was trying to explain how it’s being weaponized. As I went into in my follow up post, it’s a very commonly used term, and I don’t assume ill intent when it is used. People were asking what is wrong with it, and I was trying to explain.

        But I don’t think the original person who called the word out is right that it’s hate speech. It has become a right wing dog whistle for exclusion. But it’s a common usage, even on websites like planned parenthood it shows up. Calling it hate speech is an unfair stretch. Intention matters here.

        Personally, I don’t feel it’s a very helpful concept. I don’t fit neatly into any of the boxes aside from maybe intersex. I have sexual characteristics of both so my biological sex would be both.

        But the debate about my rights are framed as male or female. Sarah McBride is being attacked for her bathroom choice based on ‘biological sex’. And her sex isn’t anyone’s business but her Drs and people she shares it with to begin with. Plus what they mean is cis women’s only bathrooms, because I’m sure they don’t want trans masc people there either, and it’s obvious segregation.