Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:

When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.

This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.

The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?

This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.

There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.

It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.

Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.

No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.

All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.

I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.

So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.

DP, I posted about this yesterday and have yet to read an explanation as to why having a feeling makes it a reality. I specifically mentioned other conditions such as BIID and anorexia which cause an individual to have feelings or perceptions in opposition to reality. A person with BIID for example may have an intense desire to amputate a leg because their body does not recognize the limb. It literally feels like a foreign object attached to them. How is this any different from gender dysphoria? If doctors will amputate healthy body parts for transgender people why not amputate a health limb for someone suffering from BIID? Why is one considered a mental disorder and the other not? Believing a person really has the opposite sex soul is a spiritual, metaphysical belief not rooted in science.

I am the mental hospital doctor (not psychiatrist) and THIS. I am not a very good writer/speaker and you have summed up my feelings exactly. Thank you.

As a doctor that treats trans patients, what is your suggested treatment for gender dysphoria?

It’s my understanding that most trans people transition and are fine. Aside from transition there is basically people saying, “we know you want to transition but try really hard not to because we don’t want you to do this to your body”.

Sadly, we're not allowed to research what causes individuals to be "trans" because that will promote "eradication." Imagine if we found a successful medical treatment that ameliorated gender dysphoria, making people content in the bodies in which they were born. People wouldn't stand for it because it would essentially eliminate trans people.

There is definitely political/societal pressure to say “this is not a mental disorder, no research necessary, accept and move on.” I don’t agree with this stance at all.

Unfortunately as someone who has spent a lot of time actually looking at the research this is true. Often times studies are poorly designed or not interpreted correctly. For example, many studies do not take into consideration the sexual orientation of the transgender participants. Often times what they are noticing in the brain is due to sexuality not gender identity yet they will make the claim a transgender brain aligns more with the brain of the opposite sex.

This is a very challenging area for researchers to explore and studies have been shut down by activists. Good research and science cannot be obtained if only certain results are allowed.

It’s literally out of control. If you don’t fall in lockstep with the ideology, you are labeled a transphobe or a bigot. I have been called a bigot several times on this thread alone.

There have been many bigoted comments.

And yet, this “bigot” does more for trans people in a day than most of those calling me a bigot will do in their lifetimes. I’m ok with that.

All while considering their transgenderism is mental illness. And wanting to exclude and discriminate against transgender people. No bathrooms, sports, etc.

Gross.

Tell me again what concrete things you have done to help transgender people (other than call people names online)?

I’ll wait.

So you work at a mental health facility and the vast majority of transgender people you see there have been diagnosed with some type of mental illness(es). Given your experience with the facility, it seems like there could be some familiarity bias at play. Maybe there is more of a risk because you aren’t actually qualified to diagnose mental illness and yet you still try to explain it with something…familiar.

I guess you don’t want to answer my question. I can’t say I’m surprised.

I’d answer if it were relevant. I don’t need to lie about my beliefs.

How much time did you spend on mental illness in med school? During residency? You have a MD? DO? PA..NP..DDO?

How many transgender people have you met at work? How many do you know outside of work?

Now this is just getting amusing. You won’t answer my question but expect me to answer several of yours?

No sweat - I already know the answer. You just confirmed it.

You want special points because you are polite when you treat someone’s rash at a job where you happen to work with transgender patients? Why don’t you share your real thoughts with them?

My job doesn’t involve patients, but I do know many people, personally and professionally, who are transgender. A very wide age range. A few family members. I support them; I don’t think they are broken.

And now you’re doubling down. Excellent work.

Yes, I do still think it’s crappy that you want to discriminate against transgender people.

The seldom achieved tripling down. Well, at least you’ve got stick-to-itivness…I’ll give you that.

You want to ban transgender people from their gender-appropriate bathrooms and sports teams.

Your positions speak for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Earlier we had a discussion of misogyny and the erasure of women from language. I saw something this morning that resonated, so bringing it as an example to this thread. Below is a glossary of LGBTQIA+ terms recommended by Johns Hopkins.

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/

There is a curious difference between lesbian versus gay man in the definitions.

Gay Man: A man who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately, or relationally attracted to other men, or who identifies as a member of the gay community. At times, “gay” is used to refer to all people, regardless of gender, who have their primary sexual and or romantic attractions to people of the same gender. “Gay” is an adjective (not a noun) as in “He is a gay man.”

Lesbian [sexual orientation]: A non-man attracted to non-men. While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label.


In this world outlook, gay men retain their identities as men. But lesbians exist only in relation to men. They are not women, they are “non-men.”

How is this not deeply misogynist? How does this not fully center men? How is this not erasure of women? Why do people think this is remotely okay? This is not just some podunk university. This is JHU, presumably one of the most advanced medical organizations in the world, yet they are fine promulgating overtly sexist language. Why are people okay with this?

[Anonymous]

PP here. To add one point, the glossary comes from JHU’s diversity and inclusion team and specifically from their resources for gender and sexuality.

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/

It is linked from their education page:

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Earlier we had a discussion of misogyny and the erasure of women from language. I saw something this morning that resonated, so bringing it as an example to this thread. Below is a glossary of LGBTQIA+ terms recommended by Johns Hopkins.

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/

There is a curious difference between lesbian versus gay man in the definitions.

Gay Man: A man who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately, or relationally attracted to other men, or who identifies as a member of the gay community. At times, “gay” is used to refer to all people, regardless of gender, who have their primary sexual and or romantic attractions to people of the same gender. “Gay” is an adjective (not a noun) as in “He is a gay man.”

Lesbian [sexual orientation]: A non-man attracted to non-men. While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label.


It is deeply misogynist. You're not missing anything.
In this world outlook, gay men retain their identities as men. But lesbians exist only in relation to men. They are not women, they are “non-men.”

How is this not deeply misogynist? How does this not fully center men? How is this not erasure of women? Why do people think this is remotely okay? This is not just some podunk university. This is JHU, presumably one of the most advanced medical organizations in the world, yet they are fine promulgating overtly sexist language. Why are people okay with this?

[Anonymous]

It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

[Anonymous]

Not ok with this at all and refusing to do business with companies who adjust their language to respect a man. Bodies with female sex organs is the phrase used in a teen girls puberty pamphlet. They also removed the female symbol from their packaging. And more companies are jumping on the bandwagon...
I don't see any male products doing the same to be inclusive of transmen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. To add one point, the glossary comes from JHU’s diversity and inclusion team and specifically from their resources for gender and sexuality.

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/

It is linked from their education page:

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/

Email them and let them know they need to update the “gay” term to include non-binary as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not ok with this at all and refusing to do business with companies who adjust their language to respect a man. Bodies with female sex organs is the phrase used in a teen girls puberty pamphlet. They also removed the female symbol from their packaging. And more companies are jumping on the bandwagon...
I don't see any male products doing the same to be inclusive of transmen.

Intentional misgendering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

You claim that this glossary is inclusive - yet is specifically excludes women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

So rather that looking at overtly sexist language and recognizing it as such, you are making up fantasies about what happened? You do realize just how bad your fantasy scenario makes JHU look, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

You claim that this glossary is inclusive - yet is specifically excludes women.

Women are not excluded. ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

So rather that looking at overtly sexist language and recognizing it as such, you are making up fantasies about what happened? You do realize just how bad your fantasy scenario makes JHU look, right?

Just seems like more of a realistic explanation than a big conspiracy to “erase” women.