1015
Pedro Pascal Calls For Boycott of HBO's Upcoming $2 Billion ‘Harry Potter' Series — World of Reel
(www.worldofreel.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
1015 points (98.3% liked)
Transgender
605 readers
1392 users here now
Overview:
The Lemmy place to discuss the news and experiences of transgender people.
Rules:
-
Keep discussions civil.
-
Arguments against transgender rights will be removed.
-
No bigotry is allowed - including transphobia, homophobia, speciesism, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, castism, or xenophobia.
Shinigami Eyes:
Extension for Quickly Spotting Transphobes Online.
spoiler iphone: unofficial workaround to use extension Install the Orion browser then add the extension. :::
Related:
!lgbtq_plus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Considering dolls is a term applied only to trans women, he should have just said "a term of endearment for trans women". The only reason he didn't is because he's anti-trans, and maybe he doesn't even understand that "dolls" is a term specific to trans women, or that trans men even exist, a lot of anti-trans bigots are obsessed with trans women and think the only trans people are trans women; there are estimated to be equal numbers of trans men as trans women, they just don't get the same attention.
The bathroom debate shows this mindset, anti-trans activist want trans women to use men's restrooms, but they aren't thinking about the fact that those same laws and policies force trans men women's restrooms, leading to this kind of situation:
So the anti-trans movement claims they are keeping men out of women's restrooms, while doing exactly the opposite.
I think the anti-trans movement wants to claim that the entire idea of trans people is ideologically driven, but they have it in reverse - the gender binary and anti-trans movement is ideologically driven, while the position that trans people exists and should have gender-affirming care is based on actual empirical evidence. The science shows reality is much more complicated than the gender binary, and that being trans is biologically determined, genetically inherited, and part of natural human variation throughout our history as a species.
So it seems acknowledging the reality and gender of trans people is not so much ideologically driven as much as it is more aligned with reality than the status quo of assigning gender according to a model of binary sex based an a quick inspection of genitals at birth, which we know is ideologically driven. The only reason to reject the undisputed science is for religious and political reasons, there is no actual debate or ambiguity about the science. Every single major medical and scientific association endorses gender affirming care for minors and adults, there is a firm consensus on this. These organizations are typically conservative, not "woke", and they only support those treatments because they are the only known effective treatments of gender dysphoria.
The anti-trans movement has more in common with young earth creationism, the anti-vaxx movement, and other anti-science movements, which are often politically motivated and intersect with conservative forms of Christianity. These are truly ideologically based movements, and they support views of reality based not on what is empirically demonstrated but rather based on a dogmatic interpretation of religious texts.
For example, Matt Walsh's anti-trans film What is a Woman was compared to antivax films like VAXXED or the anti-evolution film Expelled!.
Oh, that's the point.
See, it's about men protecting women from bad things. Not about women feeling uncomfortable.
It's the same as the justification for Christian rejection of empathy (as opposed to more reserved compassion): the undertone is "women are more vulnerable to 'falling for' the empathee's sin."
Womens' perspectives may be where the thoughts stop, but that is no accident.
I think the anti-trans activists coming up with the policies are aware of trans men and have crafted this policy to stoke moral panic and to keep trans people out of public life. I guess in my mind, the naive anti-trans person who doesn't know about trans men were more like the average person duped by anti-trans propaganda.
The actual people running the movement know a trans man realistically won't be comfortable going to the women's restroom, so their intention isn't really to force them in there either - it's to increase risks for trans people so they either face violence in the wrong bathroom or face criminality, maybe with a long term goal of using the prisons to forcefully detransition trans people.
That some trans people are going ahead and complying with the bathroom law is maybe an unintended side effect, but it still achieves the effect of increasing risks for trans people - trans women are at much greater risk of violence in a men's restroom or in a men's prison than in a women's restroom or a women's prison, and thus achieving the genocidal goal of eradicating trans people.
I completely agree, women's safety was never the actual priority - nor does it accord with reality, the empirical evidence shows that trans inclusive policies do not increase crime and the idea that trans people pose any real threat are not based in reality.
Women never mattered here, and even the anti-trans "gender-critical" movement that claims feminist roots have distanced themselves from feminism, with increasing focus on targeting trans women and prioritizing anti-trans policies even when it contradicts feminist goals or beliefs.
I think it really depends. There are some leaders/influencers who know exactly what they're doing, and are using this moral panic as a engagement tool. Maybe some do have the idea of forcefully detransitioning the incarcerated, with a kind of Mike Pence attitude to it (who is much more supportive of conversion therapy than most people are aware of).
But (speaking as someone with some very evangelical southern US family), I think some supporters really are thinking of this from the "protect vunerable women" perspective. This thread weaves through everything, their whole ideology and perception of people... Women are supposed to need and accept men's protection and direction. So of course these scary "biological men" should be removed from their bathrooms, while being with "biological women" still fits that idealistic fantasy until they actually look at a picture like this. But that will never often happen because staying intellectually sheltered is part of the culture. Women are conditioned to not bluntly point out stuff like this.
Yes, I was trying to differentiate the kinds of anti-trans people, the clergy from the flock so to speak. The politicians like Mike Pence and activists like Matt Walsh are more likely to be strategic and knowledgeable about the issues.
The lay people who are influenced by those activist leaders are more likely to be ignorant and have different perspectives.
Whether leaders or lay people, I don't take them seriously when they say they are trying to "protect vulnerable women" any more than I think conservatives actually care about small government or states rights, everything is just rationalization and rhetoric to justify a less pleasant and less defensible position (like taking food stamps away from the poor, or eradicating trans people).
I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge #occupotty
And this is a stunning example of the power of male privilege.
and the fact that transphobia is mostly motivated by misogyny (see Julia Serano's concept of "transmisogyny" outlined in Whipping Girl).
Even transphobia against trans men is misogynistic, e.g. when trans men are treated as just vulnerable / hapless women or girls that need to protecting from "trans grooming", which is patronizing and conventionally sexist, or when
content warning
corrective rape is used on trans men to re-assert their assigned gender, e.g. Sam Nordquist and Brandon Teena.The violence trans men face is ultimately connected to violence against women, even if it is being applied to men to deny them their gender.
Wow. People really sicken me.
yeah, tough to stomach some aspects of humanity - but it's worth keeping it mind it's only a small minority of people, I try not to generalize the exceptional violence of the worst of us onto the rest of humanity.
I hear you, and I do try to practice that. I find so many to be disappointing, though. It definitely helps to remember that I can't control others, just my own actions/reactions.