Why the ultrarich come after trans people ?

[email protected]

Gender is a load bearing brainworm for capitalist society. Capitalists need stratification, having a gradient of various degrees of precariousness for workers to experience that would push them into accepting a worse deal for selling their labor. Gender is clearly one of the primary ways to achieve this: an absolutely incredible amount of domestic labor is performed without compensation by women every day, and society would fall apart if it wasn't. The rigid structure of the patriarchy is a key feature of this system, which means that trans people represent a clear break in that logic; if AFAB individuals can just choose not to be subjected to gender-based exploitation, it starts to rip the whole thing apart. Equally, transfeminine people represent another break in the opposite direction. The patriarchy is more or less incompatible with the existence of trans people, at least without significantly transforming itself.

[email protected]

Scapegoating

[email protected]

I wouldn't say that JK Rowling was "going after" transfolk, she just didn't agree with their premise. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's hatred

[email protected]

Trans people: "I'd like to exist."

JK Rowling: "I don't agree with your premise."

Totally not hatred.

[email protected]

They will pick whatever group they think will suddenly put as many idiots as possible under their control when they say "GROUP A IS BAD".

They don't care they are trans, they only care that they can take advantage of the oppression of a minority group in order to consolidate control over people so that they can oppress more people.

When everyone alive and dead is either oppressed or under your control, you become god. This is the goal, but they don't care about the process to get there.

[email protected]

Strawman dark pattern, I see. Very nice.

[email protected]

Also, societal attitudes have changed to the point where at least open racism or homophobia aren't really acceptable any more. So they needed a new scapegoat.

[email protected]

Trolling and then playing the victim. Very nice.

[email protected]

That's not what a straw man is.

[email protected]

Not everyone who disagrees with you is trolling you. I've been speaking in a respectful tone. The rhetoric is all yours, friend.

[email protected]

It's called smokescreen. Turns the attention of the masses away of their wealth and power

[email protected]

As far as I can tell, they didn't. J.K is a straight example, but Elon went looking for an edgy movement to align with, and Zuckerberg just wants to stay rich.

Your everyday regressives want to go after trans people because they don't think they can take gay people on anymore. Some political movements have capitaised on this to gain their support, and have captured rich supporters as well because abusing trans kids and adults is compatible with them continuing to gain more and more power.

How rich are the Wichowski sisters? You bet they're not a fan of Trump.

[email protected]

In the case of Rowling, it wasn't a smoke screen so much as black mold.

[email protected]

Are you saying most people are anti-trans?

No, I think it's more nuanced than just black-or-white allies and anti-trans people. The level of pro- or anti-transness within individuals falls on a spectrum that's shaped like a bell curve, and that the people in the middle are usually amenable to trans rights if they bump into the issue in a way that resonates with them. Like for instance in their personal life with friends or family.

And that people who aren’t anti-trans are somehow not of sane mind?

No, obviously that's not what I was trying to say.

[email protected]

Oh so now we’re blaming the goats

[email protected]

Divide and conquer.

[email protected]

I think this is an important part of the answer i don't see mentioned much. Lots of good answers that seem right to me, amd i think also because trans people are such a tiny part of the population, they are politically not very strong. Bullies always pick on those weaker.

[email protected]

Just the latest social group that's still broadly acceptable to shit on.

There's not a ton of global census data out there, but in Canada trans and non-binary people make up 0.33% of the population. Which means there's a lot of people who don't know anyone who is trans or non-binary. Unfortunately there's also a lot of people who are unwilling to emphasize, or even sympathize, for those they feel are different or strange to them. It take time and effort to listen to others' stories and to gain appreciation for their perspective, and it's an effort many people are uncomfortable making if it feels they are deviating too far from society's norm. What you're observing is those in power taking advantage of the same human weakness that's been used forever to discriminate on whoever the current permissible outgroup to hate is.

How many times have you heard, "I don't care about anyone being/doing Y, but...", and then proceed to say some sort of transphobic, homophobic, racist, or sexist shit? When I grew up it was the G in LGBT. When my parents grew up it was African Americans. Women only got the right to vote a century ago, you better believe some of our great granduncles had some shit to say that would make today's uncles look like saints.

[email protected]

Because it's nothing more than a trick to divide public opinion and control it.

[email protected]

I will assume you are not talking about me here as you have no idea of my point of view on the matter. I believe you are talking generically…

That's right

Ieven if you are talking generically, i don’t think your assumption here makes sense. many people feel free to discriminate between people on the basis of their biological sex.

I am talking about the notion that all men are potentially sexual predators. I am not discussing the truthfulness of the idea, or whether women are justified to be afraid of men in general (to an extend they are). But regarding this narrower notion, there is plenty of evidence online that men find the fear outrageous (Not all men etc). If they think trans women are () simply men (I disagree) then they are simply not consistent. This naturally leads to the next step, that their interpretation of transness in AMAB people is registered as a sexual perversion (). It isn't. It is a personal identity thing, like being a (cis) woman also isn't inherently a sexual thing. To think the former is transphobia, to think the latter is misogyny. I am not saying, nor I care, about you subscribing to either, personally. We are both discussing the sociological popularity of these notions.

I don’t know where you live, but this is not true in the UK

I am a nomad, but I was talking about the US, where this grim picture is true in some states, especially with black trans women whose murders the police is particularly inadequate to solve.

while I agree with the thrust of what you are saying you have a writing style that puts words and assumptions in my mouth

I was talking generically. That having been said, I wasn't sure about your personal take, since the lack of tone in this written medium can be very misleading.

in a manner that comes across an unnecessarily combative. you also use exaggeration to make your point which is itself problematic…

I really tried to put arguments forth, and conscientiously not target you, while not giving you a free pass. I don't think I exaggerate, I just present in distilled form the things that people might mean but not necessarily say out loud.

As for being combative, I just try to be thorough and concise. When I said this is textbook transphobia I weren't attacking you. This is factual. If someone looks up a textbook on transphobia they will find the points I have asterisk-ed above. It would perhaps come down as less combative if I said "this is the dictionary definition of transphobia"? I don't know. Transphobia is an ugly thing and much like racism, there is no pleasant way to say it, but this is what the word means.

agnos.is Forums

Why the ultrarich come after trans people ?