LGBTAitP - Part 22: The Best There Is

[Mono Vertigo]

Personally I'm in favor of "Die transphobes". Preserving the original three-syllable structure and the sibilants that make a hissing, threatening sound.

I have nothing against an oppressed group taking up arms - I'm not a pacifist. But I do object to targeting innocents and I maintain that this phrase is targeting innocents.

Oh yeah, it does sound better, and it's shorter. *nods*

Pacifism... I'll say that I'm one out of spite. I just don't trust anyone to use violence in an effective and justified way anymore. Pacifism is far from perfect, but humanity as a whole is too stupid to be allowed to be violent/anti-pacifist.
Hell, I am too stupid to be allowed to be violent. I wish I could directly beat up some people, and I wish that it also was the right solution, but I refrain myself from doing it, because I'm aware it's dumb. I am even stupid enough to regularly say "the person you're complaining about deserve to be slapped with a table", or variations thereof, half-seriously! I don't trust myself to use or suggest violence appropriately, therefore I don't trust others to do it either.
TL;DR: managing to be pacifist and cynical at once.

[Coidzor]

Reading some of the extra comments, the person who wrote that seems like... not a very nice person at all. And I am extremely uncomfortable with the claim that if I want to support the trans* community as a whole, I am obliged to support that individual and everything they say regardless of how distasteful or even personally threatening it is, or be labelled an "Ally^TM".

He chose the name "Asher," and expressed the desire to be a mass-murderer. But thankfully something has prevented him from doing so. Of course he is not a nice man.

Probably the worst thing is that he's taught and is possibly still teaching this hatred to young people, apparently.

Extremism is found in all places, it seems.

As is stupidity, yeah.

[Lea Plath]

Oh, that reminds me, would people still be interested in that voice group thingie? I would assume we'd use Skype for that?

I would be up for that too if you have me.

And *hugs Tris*

[Astrella]

That sounds more like people outside of the movement who aren't really even pretending to be wearing the ally cap defending use of a word that had become fetishized while calling upon non-heteronormative privilege for their "right" to make such a declaration.

If you posit yourself as an LGBT+-advocate, then you are claiming to be an ally to the LGBT+ movement, which includes trans* people.

Choice is a wonderful thing. I can choose who my friends are and what they mean to me. I can choose to champion their causes or choose to warn them if they're making a donkey out of themselves. Just as they can choose to ignore me or not.

A label that removes that freedom of choice is not a label worth having.

Sure, but I feel that people's rights in general are worth fighting for, not matter how they act towards me. And ally is a subjective label, just because person X doesn't consider you an ally doesn't mean person Y doesn't.

Sidethought: That is one of the things it wants to illustrate; people saying they won't fight for you anymore because you aren't playing nice as to say.

-----

My thoughts: My feelings on the phrase are all over the place. I think it can have value in a discussion; I don't think there's much to be gained by having it as a tatoo / wearing it on shirts, etc... (Because the phrase would only have meaning for people who are already aware of trans* stuff; and the fact that the "slogan" requires a detailed explanation sometimes does make it feel akin to punching someone in the stomach and then explaining why it was okay to do so.) However, I'm not fully convinced that the points the phrase is trying to make can't be made in a different way. So I'm very much in the middle about it. :s

[Reluctance]

I can understand him. IIUC, he has been threatened, harassed, bullied and beaten down many many times. And apparently sent to hospital with severe injuries more than once. By cis people. It would be exceptional if he didn't hate us by now. And every year on 20th November there are the names of those who have been killed. By cis people.

I'm sure that when someone is killed for being gay/black/disabled/homeless/etc. in the wrong place, they'll take comfort in knowing that it probably had absolutely nothing to do with their gender identity.

To turn back to the friendship metaphor, it cuts both ways. Decide that you can afford to alienate allies, don't be upset if people decide that you're not worth the bother. Insist that other people can't begin to know what you're going through, prepare to have them stop engaging in dialogue. (We have people out there who insist that the most oppressed people are those who can afford to overeat, ferchrissakes. You have to factor in that people are most sensitive to things that affect them. Listening does not mean listening uncritically.) Insist that your pet cause deserves everyone's understanding and attention, while not distracting yourself with other people's causes, means that the movement of you will quickly end up with the support of you.

There's a reason I consider the whole ally mentality toxic. "Friends" who have to continually guilt-trip you aren't really your friends. I thought we all learned this in after-school specials.

[Astrella]

It gives me warm fuzzies to know that when Trayvon Martin was killed, it had absolutely nothing to do with his gender identity. I'm sure he, his family, and everyone else can rest easier knowing that.

To turn back to the friendship metaphor, it cuts both ways. Decide that you can afford to alienate allies, don't be upset if people decide that you're not worth the bother. Insist that other people can't begin to know what you're going through, prepare to have them stop engaging in dialogue. (We have people out there who insist that the most oppressed people are those who can afford to overeat, ferchrissakes. You have to factor in that people are most sensitive to things that affect them. Listening does not mean listening uncritically.) Insist that your pet cause deserves everyone's understanding and attention, while not distracting yourself with other people's causes, means that the movement of you will quickly end up with the support of you.

There's a reason I consider the whole ally mentality toxic. "Friends" who have to continually guilt-trip you aren't really your friends. I thought we all learned this in after-school specials.

But that's the whole thing; you don't fight for each other's rights out of friendship, you fight because that's the proper thing to do. (Of course it'd be preferable if everyone got along well.)

[Asta Kask]

It gives me warm fuzzies to know that when Trayvon Martin was killed, it had absolutely nothing to do with his gender identity. I'm sure he, his family, and everyone else can rest easier knowing that.

I think you'll have to explain the relevance and logic behind this statement.

[Reluctance]

But that's the whole thing; you don't fight for each other's rights out of friendship, you fight because that's the proper thing to do. (Of course it'd be preferable if everyone got along well.)

That's great in theory. In practice, if people insult me every time I show up to try and help them, I'm going to find other causes to devote my time and energy to.

I think you'll have to explain the relevance and logic behind this statement.

It's a touch politically contentious, google it if you want to see why, but it comes down to a guy who was shot and killed for being suspicious (read: black) in the wrong area. And for wearing a hoodie. My less-political edit hopefully made things clearer. Focusing on in-group vs. out-group ignores all the other yucky isms at play out in the world. And in ignoring them, earns a whap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for complicity.

[Astrella]

It's a touch politically contentious, google it if you want to see why, but it comes down to a guy who was shot and killed for being suspicious (read: black) in the wrong area. And for wearing a hoodie. My less-political edit hopefully made things clearer. Focusing on in-group vs. out-group ignores all the other yucky isms at play out in the world. And in ignoring them, earns a whap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for complicity.

Intersectionality is a pretty big thing in most 3rd wave feminist circles though. >.>

[Asta Kask]

It's a touch politically contentious, google it if you want to see why, but it comes down to a guy who was shot and killed for being suspicious (read: black) in the wrong area. And for wearing a hoodie. My less-political edit hopefully made things clearer. Focusing on in-group vs. out-group ignores all the other yucky isms at play out in the world. And in ignoring them, earns a whap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for complicity.

I would be very impressed if a person who has almost been killed remained completely neutral and detached in his complaints. Besides, he hasn't got an arm long enough to get a tattoo with all disadvantaged groups. There are objections to the tattoo, but I don't think this is one.

ETA: You can't fix all injustices in the world. You have to concentrate on a few at a time. And the trans movement have concentrated on the most salient point in their daily lives.

[golentan]

I'm with Gandhi and King on this one. Violence and violent rhetoric are no way to improve things in the long run. "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

No, it's not easy. Yes, hatred to meet hatred is easier, and comes naturally. But I still think, after all I've been through, after all the hatred people have thrown at me that hatred is never the right response. It only brings more upon you. Anger is good, anger can be a powerful motivator to right wrongs and move away from stagnation, but you should never make the mistake of letting your anger spill over into hatred of other human beings.

And no, I don't always practice what I preach. I'm not that good. But I darn skippy keep trying to.

[Astrella]

Re: Voice / LGBT+ group; I wouldn't bar anyone from joining in if they wanted to hang out.

To make this easy everyone interested just add me on Skype? If we have an idea on numbers of people we can see how to handle this further.
(My skype is "lenaleaner")

Edit: Something interesting I came across. A proposed book series for children that explores gender identity.

[Coidzor]

and the fact that the "slogan" requires a detailed explanation sometimes does make it feel akin to punching someone in the stomach and then explaining why it was okay to do so.

That would mean it wasn't OK in the first place, as it is not "OK" to punch someone in the stomach.

[Reluctance]

ETA: You can't fix all injustices in the world. You have to concentrate on a few at a time. And the trans movement have concentrated on the most salient point in their daily lives.

Fair. In turn, I'll devote my time and energies into causes that don't tell me to **** off and die. Friendship is a two-way street, not sycophantry.

No, it's not easy. Yes, hatred to meet hatred is easier, and comes naturally. But I still think, after all I've been through, after all the hatred people have thrown at me that hatred is never the right response. It only brings more upon you. Anger is good, anger can be a powerful motivator to right wrongs and move away from stagnation, but you should never make the mistake of letting your anger spill over into hatred of other human beings.

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. And in the real world, you don't get force lightning out of the deal.

[supernerd]

Sure, I wouldn't mind anyone joining in. (And having more people to talk to is always fun.)

*hugs for Triscuitable*

Now I need to make a Skype!

[Mina Kobold]

That's great in theory. In practice, if people insult me every time I show up to try and help them, I'm going to find other causes to devote my time and energy to.

Fair. In turn, I'll devote my time and energies into causes that don't tell me to **** off and die. Friendship is a two-way street, not sycophantry.

Uhm, I might be missing something, but I think you are confusing people with causes. Causes can not insult you, only people can. And the attitudes of supporters do not affect the validity of the cause in any way. Otherwise any issue would be decided by who has the best manners, wouldn't it?

I am most likely misunderstanding, though. So feel free to correct me.

[Astrella]

I'm sure that when someone is killed for being gay/black/disabled/homeless/etc. in the wrong place, they'll take comfort in knowing that it probably had absolutely nothing to do with their gender identity.\

Other problems being around doesn't invalid people fighting to solve a particular one. And people can focus on multiple issues. It reminds me of arguments along the lines of "Why are you focussing on women's rights here, women in country X have it far worse.".

[Asta Kask]

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. And in the real world, you don't get force lightning out of the deal.

You don't think people like Gandhi and MLK were angry? Anger can be a great constructive force as much as a destructive one.

[Atreyu the Masked LLama]

And no, I don't always practice what I preach. I'm not that good. But I darn skippy keep trying to.

Ultimately, I reckon that's about all any of us can do, really and I wish you the best of luck with it.

[Coidzor]

Uhm, I might be missing something, but I think you are confusing people with causes.i Causes can not insult you, only people can.

They can if they're an inherently offensive cause. Groups that support the cause can, and if enough groups embrace something so that it becomes ubiquitous...

I would be very impressed if a person who has almost been killed remained completely neutral and detached in his complaints. Besides, he hasn't got an arm long enough to get a tattoo with all disadvantaged groups. There are objections to the tattoo, but I don't think this is one.

Indeed. That's the point. Not giving up the moral high ground is impressive.

Mr. Bauer pretty much gave that up in the post he put up for "his anonymous friend."

You don't think people like Gandhi and MLK were angry? Anger can be a great constructive force as much as a destructive one.

They didn't cede the moral highground by embracing hate speech or advocating that they wished they could go out and murder people. And don't you dare continue to make such arguments to try to equate this Bauer fellow and people advocating non-violent resolution.

You may have been shamed into accepting that kind of behavior by Bauer as acceptable, but I ain't buying that load of hooey for one moment.

Other problems being around doesn't invalid people fighting to solve a particular one. And people can focus on multiple issues. It reminds me of arguments along the lines of "Why are you focussing on women's rights here, women in country X have it far worse.".

I think you're missing the point in that alienating people causes them to naturally want to put priority to their efforts into groups that don't alienate them.

[Arachu]

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. And in the real world, you don't get force lightning out of the deal.

True though that may be, nothing is accomplished by telling angry people to **** off. Intolerance isn't the way to promote tolerance.

I think that the comment was counter-productive and bigoted, but I also see that he must have a really good reason to be angry, or there wouldn't be much cause to declare hatred for the majority of humanity. I wholly agree with anyone who'd be offended by it, and they have every right to argue with him as often as they have to. But it shouldn't be responded to with more bigotry. That doesn't even make sense.

[H Birchgrove]

On allies, DCS, etc.

Spoiler

Show

What it means to be an ally.

Very interesting. I'll have to think upon this.

HURM.

The "die cis scum" debacle reminds me about a Hulk story I once read. It was from the "The Intelligent Hulk" period when The Hulk had the personality of Robert Bruce Banner, and thus had both the powers of Hulk and the intellect of Bruce Banner. The Hulk, for some reason I don't remember, was brought to or traveled to another planet, in which green-skinned people were suppressed by orange-skinned people. (I'm not sure about the latter.) The green-skinned folks thought Banner/Hulk to be their savior foretold in their scriptures. Long story short, Hulk helped the green people in their struggle, and left them, thinking that everybody would know be happy and live in peace on that planet.

However, while piloting his spaceship, The Hulk took a look at the telescope directed at the planet he was leaving.

He now saw the green people treating the orange people just the same way the orange had treated the green: by beating them, insulting them, enslaving them.

OF COURSE, this won't change the (in this particular topic) self-righteous minds of Natalie Reed and WilloNyx. Because no way a persecuted group would take revenge on the group which persecuted them, because that has never happened in the history of mankind.

I don't think that's necessarily fair. I'd embrace as an ally anyone who wasn't homophobic and factored in lgbt welfare in their voting habits. Not everyone has to be active to be an ally, it's the quiet support, acceptance, and integration that I really see as the goal.

Also, calling out "Die Cis Scum" is something I see as almost a duty. I don't know how it started, but every time I've seen it brought up it's confrontational to the point of driving away potential supporters and completely unhelpful to the dialogue. So .

Agreed.

The people that it's targeted for won't understand, and the cis allies who do understand it are uncomfortable with it and don't want to be associated with supposedly violent trans*. So it's really dumb. #transagainstdiecisscum

~ ♅

Exactly!

Right, because calling someone on saying something for it being stupid and pigheaded is "distracting" but the stupid and pigheaded and ultimately pointlessly provocative statement, that's meaningful dialogue.

What a load of hooey. Oh, you're allowed to be uncomfortable, but don't you dare open your mouth or you're a horrible person who is betraying trans* individuals and the movement in general.

I share your sentiment.

You also have to remember that, for instance, trans people are the only ones who know what it is to be trans. They have relevant knowledge that cis people don't. They are really the only ones who know enough to set goals. Now, once the goals are set, that's another matter.

I don't know what it means to be trans, but I love some persons who happen to be trans (meaning I have my personal, and if you so say so, selfish reasons to support trans people), and I know what it means to have been bullied and having faced bigotry. I may be "white"/European, but my hair is dark brown and curly, my eyes are brown, and I tan easily.

I'm sure that when someone is killed for being gay/black/disabled/homeless/etc. in the wrong place, they'll take comfort in knowing that it probably had absolutely nothing to do with their gender identity.

Heh.

To turn back to the friendship metaphor, it cuts both ways. Decide that you can afford to alienate allies, don't be upset if people decide that you're not worth the bother. Insist that other people can't begin to know what you're going through, prepare to have them stop engaging in dialogue. (We have people out there who insist that the most oppressed people are those who can afford to overeat, ferchrissakes. You have to factor in that people are most sensitive to things that affect them. Listening does not mean listening uncritically.) Insist that your pet cause deserves everyone's understanding and attention, while not distracting yourself with other people's causes, means that the movement of you will quickly end up with the support of you.

There's a reason I consider the whole ally mentality toxic. "Friends" who have to continually guilt-trip you aren't really your friends. I thought we all learned this in after-school specials.

Being allies isn't about being friends. Being allies is about teaming up for mutual causes, against mutual enemies. While I believe in altruism, sense of duty, justice, etc, I also believe that one of my main reasons to be an ally to trans people is that those who harm trans people will harm me when they're "finished" with trans people.

This goes both ways. Those who are against LGBTA+, people of colour, people with disabilities, the elderly, women, men, etc, will find new people to hunt down when they're finished with one. In the end, no one will live, if we let hate live on.

I wish the "die cis scum" crowd got this.

It's no justification for treating people who want to help you like dirt. The writer wants leniency for when she messes up in frustration, but seems to not want to grant others the same clemency. People are but flesh and blood, and they mess up. Just because someone drops the ball or isn't aware of your own personal super special snowflake hangup is no reason to throw toys out of the pram. And objecting to someone saying "Die cis scum" is hardly irrational or 'backstabbing'. I imagine "Die trans scum" wouldn't exactly go down like hugs and puppies.

Thank you.

Glad it interested you!
The woman who threatened to beat her husband severely and daily if she was forced to marry shocks and saddens me. I have no doubt she would do exactly what she said, even if her husband was as forced into the union as she was and respected her. I'm not blaming her for thinking that, but it still wouldn't justify the potential violence, and her threat sounds very credible. I really hope she will be free to choose her husband or stay celibate, and gain some peace of mind.

Indeed.

I didn't want to talk about "die cis scum" again, but I feel forced to see a parallel here... no, there is no institutionalized physical bullying of men, but men could very well suffer from misdirected hate and resent.

Wait.

no, there is no institutionalized physical bullying of men

Ever watched Full Metal Jacket?

Well; it's iffy, because there is always a danger that the supporters do "take over" the movement, and this can be dangerous, no matter how benign their intentions. The main thing to watch out for is that the voice of the minority themselves can never be silenced cause of it.

I have never heard or read about it ever happening.

(Feel free to contact me at MSN or the Facebook chat.)

Look at the case of the German trans girl Alex for example; I'm sure all the people involved have her well-being in mind, but she's not even given a voice. In the end, isn't the best way to know what people feel and want to ask them?

While it certainly doesn't make it *right*, I think it has more to do with her being a child than her being trans.

Sure, I wouldn't mind anyone joining in. (And having more people to talk to is always fun.)

*hugs for Triscuitable*

I want to join too.

[Asta Kask]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Total non-violence - even in the face of lethal threats - seems to me to be a morally bankrupt strategy. You are essentially leaving the resistance to those who are less 'morally perfect'. And if they are sufficiently impressed by your eloquence you will all sit down and let the tyrants cut your throats. No thank you.

This is getting too close to politics for my taste.

[Coidzor]

True though that may be, nothing is accomplished by telling angry people to **** off.

Good thing no one's been doing that?

I don't think we've actually had anyone come into this thread who has been legitimately angry rather than distant from the phrase, after all.

Everything I've seen has mostly been legitimate points brought up about why it's a bad idea to say and try to grow with the occasional observation of "Wow, this guy just said he wanted to commit mass murder by agreeing completely with his 'anonymous friend.' That really just happened." I would not really qualify that last bit as telling an angry person to **** off either.

Intolerance isn't the way to promote tolerance.

Indeed, that's a good point to bring up against people who'd want to throw that phrase around a lot. Letting people throw temper tantrums or continue to shoot off at the mouth after they're no longer angry isn't going to be doing anyone any favors. Intolerance and hate are to be combated, not allowed to fester and grow into something new and uglier.

I think that the comment was counter-productive and bigoted, but I also see that he must have a really good reason to be angry, or there wouldn't be much cause to declare hatred for the majority of humanity.

The point is that it doesn't actually matter how much crap the man has been through. It's ultimately irrelevant. You don't get a license to do wrong simply because you have been wronged, it's basic morality that we teach our children, for as few of them actually learn it.

I wholly agree with anyone who'd be offended by it, and they have every right to argue with him as often as they have to. But it shouldn't be responded to with more bigotry. That doesn't even make sense.

Bigotry should not be responded to by bigotry. Thankfully there has been no bigotry given in response, Arachu, so no worries there.

I would argue that it goes beyond "being offended" by it to object to it being said or people seeking to spread it and grow it. There's a big of sheer pragmatism and principle as well.

[Astrella]

You may have been shamed into accepting that kind of behavior by Bauer as acceptable, but I ain't buying that load of hooey for one moment.

I'm pretty sure Asta's opinions are his own. There's no reason to deal out low blows like that.

I think you're missing the point in that alienating people causes them to naturally want to put priority to their efforts into groups that don't alienate them.

I'm not. And that's not what that quoted part was about.

[Coidzor]

I'm pretty sure Asta's opinions are his own. There's no reason to deal out low blows like that.

I'm sorry, I thought Asta came into this thread in the first place and brought "Die Cis Scum" all to our attention about how he had objected to it on Natalie Reed's blog and had a flame war erupt in his face, and then later came back in and admitted that he had seen the light.

My mistake then, I apologize.

The important part is that if he is, in fact, recognizing "Die Cis Scum" as "OK," then he is approving of something morally wrong even if it is ultimately impotent and for that reason I am obligated to disagree with him and anyone else who thinks it is OK in the most vehement and emphatic sense of the word. I will not be dissuaded by you, because my moral compass in this case is fairly rock solid and so I can tell that this is bad guys.

The more I see someone try to legitimize it, the more I must needs remind them that they are legitimizing something wrong and so doing wrong themselves.

I'm not. And that's not what that quoted part was about.

I'm pretty sure that entire side discussion that Reluctance brought up and that you were missing the point of by arguing that people should support trans rights even if trans people treat them poorly when they try to support trans rights was about just that. Maybe I quoted the wrong block of text, but I'd swear there was a sub-thread between the two of you about just that.

[Asta Kask]

I'm sorry, I thought Asta came into this thread in the first place and brought "Die Cis Scum" all to our attention about how he had objected to it on Natalie Reed's blog and had a flame war erupt in his face, and then later came back in and admitted that he had seen the light.

My mistake then, I apologize.

Apology accepted.

[Mono Vertigo]

Ever watched Full Metal Jacket?

No, I didn't, sadly.

Spoiler

Show

What I meant is that straight white cismen are not often oppressed because of their gender. When they do, it's generally in ways that discourage that from exhibiting "feminine" characteristics, or that get rid of privileges (like being able to raise or see your children when you're divorced), as opposite to direct violence and denial of basic human rights. Oppression of women is far worse than oppression of men, today, in most if not all places on Earth and around its atmosphere.

Or is it an idea that's directly contradicted by that movie?

[Coidzor]

Musashi, H Birchgrove:

Spoiler

Show

I suppose it could be argued that oppression is learned and honed on other young cismen as children, so that making inroads on bullying would make them less liable to bully outside their own group and making inroads against viewing other groups as truly "other" would have an effect in diminishing bullying within the group as well.

[Reluctance]

I have never heard or read about it (allies taking over a movement) ever happening.

Stop by the next local pride parade. Simple demographics mean that there are likely to be more straight allies than actual people the parade is meant for. (Kinsey's numbers are acknowledged as being inflated, and even by them, straights have a 9:1 edge over everyone else.) The official leaders won't be overturned, but most of the safe spaces will be co-opted.

Having said that, movements have to be much more careful about letting extremists run the show. It's all too easy to let ideological purity become a litmus test, which turns the movement into an ingrown caricature. Most of the examples I can think of are political and/or religious. I'm sure you can think of political and/or religious groups that have turned in on themselves to this degree on your own.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Total non-violence - even in the face of lethal threats - seems to me to be a morally bankrupt strategy. You are essentially leaving the resistance to those who are less 'morally perfect'. And if they are sufficiently impressed by your eloquence you will all sit down and let the tyrants cut your throats. No thank you.

This is getting too close to politics for my taste.

Do we need to discuss the difference between a sane view of self-defense and preemptive attacks?