Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is no conspiracy. There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy; we can see it right in front of us.

[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.

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

What expense?

[Anonymous]

Maybe they aren’t defining it, but sharing how the words are being used by college-age people?

“WSW: An abbreviation for women who have sex with women. This term emphasizes the behavior, rather than the identities of the individuals involved.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they aren’t defining it, but sharing how the words are being used by college-age people?

“WSW: An abbreviation for women who have sex with women. This term emphasizes the behavior, rather than the identities of the individuals involved.“

Sure, but that then betrays enormous sexism being used among the college population. Also, typically JHU prides itself on scientific accuracy.

[Anonymous]

This is a good one for this thread:

Cissexism: A belief that there are only two genders which are assigned at birth and immutable. This prejudice has been integrated into social systems and policies, which contributes to the discrimination and oppression of transgender, non-binary, and gender nonconforming people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they aren’t defining it, but sharing how the words are being used by college-age people?

“WSW: An abbreviation for women who have sex with women. This term emphasizes the behavior, rather than the identities of the individuals involved.“

Sure, but that then betrays enormous sexism being used among the college population. Also, typically JHU prides itself on scientific accuracy.

I don’t read it as sexism at all. Women are included with that definition. They are adding NB. No one is being removed.

Maybe it’s just a generational thing and you’re out of touch with modern LGTBQ+ culture/ terminology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they aren’t defining it, but sharing how the words are being used by college-age people?

“WSW: An abbreviation for women who have sex with women. This term emphasizes the behavior, rather than the identities of the individuals involved.“

Sure, but that then betrays enormous sexism being used among the college population. Also, typically JHU prides itself on scientific accuracy.

I don’t read it as sexism at all. Women are included with that definition. They are adding NB. No one is being removed.

Maybe it’s just a generational thing and you’re out of touch with modern LGTBQ+ culture/ terminology.

It’s always remarkable how quickly and casually trans activists resort to gross ageism when they cannot defend the indefensible.

[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.

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

Women are not excluded. ?

. Then why doesn’t the definition of lesbian use the word woman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a good one for this thread:

Cissexism: A belief that there are only two genders which are assigned at birth and immutable. This prejudice has been integrated into social systems and policies, which contributes to the discrimination and oppression of transgender, non-binary, and gender nonconforming people.

So is it cissexism when gay men are defined as men but lesbians are defined as “non-men”? I’m so confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

[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:“It is a cheap rhetorical trick to constantly pretend, as Trans Radical Activists do, that this debate is the same as the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement. It isn’t, because in those debates, there was no conflict of rights between peoples.” X Shahana Ashur

This was incredibly helpful for me when trying to understand how to frame the argument.

Christians in TN refusing to process paperwork for gay men getting married. Cake shops. All that freedom of religion stuff where people claim their god hates gays.

Yes, and white supremacists had their feelings hurt by the Civil Rights Act.

But none of that is remotely similar to the actual increased physical risks that women take on to benefit the trans rights movement. And in the other two civil rights movements, there wasn’t a new rapacious medical industry whose continued profit depended on the success of the movement. And that is the difference here.

Yes, obnoxious Christian bakers got told to bake a stupid cake. I think most Americans rolled their eyes and told them to bake the stupid cake. That’s not a conflict of rights, that’s some snowflakes being told to do something that doesn’t physically hurt them at all.

But trans rights is very different because women are being and will get physically harmed due to the destruction of women’s single-sex spaces. Male predators (who will mostly be cis) have used and will use enhanced access to spaces they couldn’t previously access. Meanwhile, children and vulnerable adults have been and will be hurt by an industry that is profit-driven, growing rapidly, and repressing any academic research critical of their profit.

I want to be clear: I do not support bathroom bans, or bans on children’s access to treatment. But it needs to be okay to talk about the enormous societal harms that some people, disproportionately the most vulnerable, will pay for the advancement of transgender rights. Right now, that discussion is shut down entirely. Academics who so much as question some of the glaringly weak studies on transgender medical care for children risk losing their entire careers at the hands of activists. Women who speak about physical safety risks face grotesquely violent rape and death threats from trans activists.

All of this is very, very different from prior civil rights movements.

Trans people shouldn't be punished for things that a different group is doing. I'm glad you don't support bathroom bans, but so many people do. Cis men sometimes assault women, cis men take advantage to open access, so let's ban trans women from women's bathrooms. I've yet to see any information that shows allowing trans women access to women's bathrooms increases violent crimes against women. I've seen a study that showed violent crimes increase where there are unisex bathrooms, which is a completely different topic. I don't think there's going to be a big rush of cis men claiming to be trans women for 5 minute increments so they can use the women's bathroom, and if that does happen, again, that's a cis men problem not a trans problem.

There is plenty of documentation regarding cis males who transition to trans woman when incarcerated when they have never before identified as women. Are these Cis men claiming to be transgender woman for access to women’s prisons? Or are they trans woman who discovered their trans feelings coincidentally when incarcerated? How do we tell the difference?

The most terrifying part? We can even question it!

Did you mean can't even question it? Because it looks like a lot of questions about it. This is more nonsense. There are literally more laws than ever being proposed and put into place that affect trans people. Yet you're claiming you're somehow being oppressed as you question the validity of people claiming to be trans. That's the scary part.

I’m guessing the PP means you can question it, but if you do you get labeled a trans phone and a bigot and whatever else insult they want to throw at you. This thread is evidence of that.
Thankfully, it’s not working. At least on this thread.

Posters on this thread go beyond “questioning” it. They claim transgenderism doesn’t exist - it’s mental illness; they come up with wild scenarios to fearmonger; they conflate violent cis-gender men with transgender women; etc.

This is a strange comment. Schizophrenia is a mental illness - does that mean it doesn’t exist? I’m not sure what you’re saying.

PP was claiming that transgenderism only exists as a mental illness, not as natural state. Something that could be treated or “cured”.

Maybe similar to pray away the gay.

So what do you think causes someone to experience gender dysphoria and do those feelings really make it a reality? Do you believe transwomen have female souls separate from their male body or do you think there is possibly something going on in the brain causing them to feel dysphoric? Can there be other potential issues at play such as a history of sexual abuse, trauma or even autism that may make someone experience gender dysphoria? What exactly makes a transwoman a woman other than an internal feeling which is in direct conflict with reality? Individuals may choose to transition to alleviate their discomfort but I don't see how it is any different than someone amputating a limb to alleviate their suffering from BIID. Homosexuality is not the same thing as gender identity and it also exists in other species with a potential evolutionary purpose behind it.

I think there are underlying biological differences that aren’t yet understood. Environmental factors during embryo/fetus development. Unknown DNA traits. I believe there is at least one brain marker identified. We need more research in these areas.

Also, it may have been more prevalent in the past but suppressed due to intolerances.

Please post links to any studies that conclude there is a so called brain marker that is distinct for trans people.

It has been discussed on DCUM before. I mentioned on this thread.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/960/1135511.page#25154539

According to the study above researchers found differences in the part of the brain that deal with body perception. Once sexuality is accounted for the transgender brain is sex typical except in this area. So it furthers my previous point of showing a similarity with other body dysmorphic conditions. It’s the body perception and sense of self in conflict with observable reality. The perception and feeling do not make it true though.

There are also many other issues which can lead to someone developing gender dysphoria but trying to even discuss these things is not allowed because everyone must be affirmed and doing so is transphobic. For example, why are so many kids on the autism spectrum especially girls now declaring they are transgender? If it’s innate then why do some have gender dysphoria from a young age while others don’t develop it until they are a teenager or even older?

Transgender people should absolutely have the right to transition to alleviate their discomfort but I don’t like society pretending an internal false perception is reality. It is the equivalent of telling someone with BIID their leg really doesn’t exist even though we can see it with our own eyes or telling a 90 pound girl she does look overweight.

I think people with autism have less to lose socially and are more able to come out. To me, this means there’s a lot of neurotypical closeted trans people.

That’s really interesting. How many closeted trans people do you think there are? This just hasn’t occurred to me before, but as you’ve been thinking about it, what percentage of cis people do you think are closeted?

I would have to look at the numbers. Most are probably nonbinary but aren’t so dysphoric that they feel it necessary to identify as such because it makes life harder to present other than your birth gender.

I actually think a lot of trans and non-binary people probably didn’t even realize that’s what they were going through BUT because this is such a political wedge issue right now that many more people will probably learn that others like them are out there and what it means.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the number of trans and non-binary people coming out increases substantially in the next couple of years.

How is this different from a gender non-conforming person?

GNC people aren’t cool - duh! Also, I don’t think that the money is there to support GNC people. No Pritzker or Rothblatt $ is backing people who think gender norms are wrong.

[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:

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.

She spends an inordinate amount of time talking about trans people. She says we have a mental disorder but it’s 5:30 on a Friday and I check in and she is still posting here.

Speaking of helping trans people out, I let a homeless trans friend live in my house. Also a lot more but I won’t go into it all.

Are you the PP that I posed the question to? If so, this is a bizarre statement.

I am not. We can have mental illnesses together.

So are you saying posting on DCUM at 5:30 on a Friday is a mental illness?
Because if you are, then, well…I guess I’ll have to add another psych med to my current one. Guilty as charged.

I’m saying you’re addicted to this website and talking about trans people.

Again, guilty as charged.

What is it about trans people that make you want to talk about them so much?

They’re trying to remove single-sex spaces whilst being part of a group that commits sexual assaults more often than even cis men? Why aren’t you more engaged? Kind of a big deal as the numbers are rising astronomically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they aren’t defining it, but sharing how the words are being used by college-age people?

“WSW: An abbreviation for women who have sex with women. This term emphasizes the behavior, rather than the identities of the individuals involved.“

Sure, but that then betrays enormous sexism being used among the college population. Also, typically JHU prides itself on scientific accuracy.

I don’t read it as sexism at all. Women are included with that definition. They are adding NB. No one is being removed.

Maybe it’s just a generational thing and you’re out of touch with modern LGTBQ+ culture/ terminology.

It’s always remarkable how quickly and casually trans activists resort to gross ageism when they cannot defend the indefensible.

You don’t think there are differences in generational language? The terminology is evolving very quickly.

How long ago did you come out?

FWIW, I’m probably older than you.

[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.

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

Women are not excluded. ?

. Then why doesn’t the definition of lesbian use the word woman?

They explain that it’s women + non-binary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they aren’t defining it, but sharing how the words are being used by college-age people?

“WSW: An abbreviation for women who have sex with women. This term emphasizes the behavior, rather than the identities of the individuals involved.“

Sure, but that then betrays enormous sexism being used among the college population. Also, typically JHU prides itself on scientific accuracy.

I don’t read it as sexism at all. Women are included with that definition. They are adding NB. No one is being removed.

Maybe it’s just a generational thing and you’re out of touch with modern LGTBQ+ culture/ terminology.

It’s always remarkable how quickly and casually trans activists resort to gross ageism when they cannot defend the indefensible.

You don’t think there are differences in generational language? The terminology is evolving very quickly.

How long ago did you come out?

FWIW, I’m probably older than you.

If the language is evolving such that lesbians are defined as non-men while gay men remain men, it should be okay to point out the glaring sexism in that language evolution regardless of how old people are.

And inasmuch as women can promote sexism, older people can use ageism. Your age doesn’t excuse your ageist language.