( Ginger )
Funny how all the commenters talking about the shooter over on Reddit have no problems assuming his pronouns and calling him "he."
I guess the whole "aCsHtUaLlY... THEY use they/them pronouns. I know they're a monster, but if we misgender we're no better than them" song and dance ONLY applies when they target women.
( UndergroundLesbian )
guess the whole "aCsHtUaLlY... THEY use they/them pronouns. I know they're a monster, but if we misgender we're no better than them" song and dance ONLY applies when they target women.
Literally LMAO. Just look how they defended Chris Chan’s supposed identity as a trans lesbian, and would go haywire if you dared to use he/him when it came out that he raped his mother. Now they’re angry that the shooter is being associated with their side.
Context. Context matters.
You keep claiming that “self-id” means we accept literally everyone’s claimed identity, all the time, regardless of any indications to the contrary.
Which is… a strawman.
It’s actually a lot like the saying “believe women” in reference to rape and domestic violence. Does it mean we always believe everything any given woman says and treat it as the absolute, undoubtable truth, the way anti-feminists claim we do?
No. It just means that you err on the side of presuming that the person is honest and credible, and their allegation may be as well. You support them, and you do not go shaming them or assuming they’re just lying for clout or personal gain the way all too many people assume they do.
Does this mean that some of those women may be lying? Sure.
Does it mean we abandon legal presumption of innocence for the accused, and just jail them immediately, no questions asked, simply because of a testimony against them? Of course not.
Similar case here.
We have Chris-chan, an immensely problematic and disturbed person who admitted to doing a heinous crime. However, from what little I know of her, there is reason to believe her trans identity may very well be valid. Furthermore, in the context she lives in — one of constant harassment and negative attention from the likes of KiwiFarms — expressing a trans identity can only make her a target of even worse mockery and bullying.
On the other hand, we have a person who just committed a mass shooting targeting a queer club, who — again, from what I’ve heard — has according to witnesses engaged in rabidly homophobic rhetoric during the past few years. A person whose background makes them very likely to see non-binary identites as a joke, and who also very likely thinks that expressing such an identity now can function as a “get out of jail free” card for hate crime charges. Also, the source of that ‘non-binary’ claim? The shooter’s team of lawyers.
As people who aren’t deeply submerged in TERF ideology might notice, these cases are not the same.
That said, I still cautiously made an effort to use the pronouns ’they/their’ for the shooter at first, until being sufficiently satisfied that his claimed identity is very likely false. This despite having a strong incentive for wanting the shooter not to be non-binary or transgender, due to the huge hostility, suspicion and derision these communities already face (and I’m part of that, being trans).
It’s the same with Chris-chan: she’s the sort of person I’d much rather not be “related” to in any way, shape or form… but since I have no strong reason to doubt her expressed identity, I continue to think of her as female and refer to her as such, despite the fact that her not being considered trans would actually be beneficial for the trans community’s public standing. But I will not strip other people of their right to be seen as themselves, even if they’re horrible people and/or hardened criminals.
To summarize: “Believe transfolk.” That means an assumption of good faith, of them being who they say they are, unless there is sufficient evidence or at the very least a strong indication that they’re lying. And one should only act according to the latter after some serious consideration, and with awareness of the weight of such an act.
( Ginger )
"Why would a trans person attack a queer bar?"
I guess this would be a response to some pro-trans people, rather than you… but nevermind.
Answer: Because they’re queerphobic. As I said elsewhere, many queer people are bigoted towards other queer groups — your lesbian TERFs are an excellent example, being very transphobic. But even internalized queerphobia is a thing: many gay and lesbian folks are in some way homophobic, many trans people are transphobic, and yes, many women are misogynistic. Self-loathing is a very common thing, you know; as is the internalization of norms that are limiting or hostile to one’s own people.
And that is why being part of a group shouldn’t automatically exclude a member from hate crime charges against people from that same group.
Good question. While we're on the topic, why would they attack and ostracize their own like Blaire White, Buck Angel, and any other trans-identifying person who dares to question the current brand of transideology?
Because those trans people are transphobic, duh! Not only that… they are also loudly transphobic, rather resistant to learning better, and — especially in Blaire’s case — outright using their own internalized transphobia as a money-making machine.
And you wonder why people find them offensive, disgusting and don’t want anything to do with them??
Right, just like it's suspicious Liam Thomas came out after swimming right in the middle of his collegiate swim career. Seems like he KNEW he only had two more years left he could actually be competitive...
Yup, totally the same. Totally comparable (/s)