Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
HUD rolls back protections on transgender individuals
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FireDragon76" data-source="post: 75143716" data-attributes="member: 330042"><p>[USER=395596]@Silmarien[/USER], it's not at all clear that patriarchy as we understand it is universal across time. It may be that it was something that was part of the agricultural revolution as power was centralized within human settlements. In which case, oppression of women, at least of the sort that feminists in our culture object to the most strongly, wouldn't be intrinsic to their biology, but a byproduct of particular arrangements of human society that are culturally conditioned.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It makes sense when Christian ideology is the main fuel in our culture for transphobia. I have already pointed out how Buddhists, for instance, are not necessarily hostile to transsexualism, that this is something that is mostly confined to western culture's construction of gender.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm just saying traditional, uncritically reformed Christianity is not really your friend here, since Christians typically will say that motherhood is natural and things like President Obama saying that women are potentially "punished" by pregnancy is deplorable and sub-Christian.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I think me and most transpeople are very aware of that. But I also am aware that the human condition is not limited by history, particularly white European history. Again, it's likely in our prehistory that women had more autonomy.</p><p></p><p>I have an anthropology background and I actually know that pre-contact Native American tribes had alot more respect for the sovereignty of women over their own bodies. In the Cherokee society, for instance, there was no question that a woman had an absolute right over her own body in matters of procreation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you misunderstand, I'm not the one arguing for gender essentialism. If I don't believe in gender essentialism, how could I believe I can define "the essence of womanhood"?</p><p></p><p>FWIW, I am a philosophical nominalist (as are Buddhists in general, but so is most modern philosophy) and I don't believe that concepts are anything but conventions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There are no shortages of people who claim to be activists but are in fact maladjusted people with narcissistic or even sociopathic tendencies out to manipulate others for their own benefit. But most large LGBT and feminists organizations don't engender that sort of thing, and it's specifically that sort of advocacy I am speaking from, against the blanket assertions by social conservatives, rooted in a conservative Christian ethos, that crude biological reductionism should define ones gender and be enshrined into law.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes. I'm no fan of the Red Pill crowd, and I don't line up with their ideology at all. They are social conservatives angry because they can't navigate a changing world, which is very different from the place I am coming from.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>J.K. Rowling is transphobic and she doesn't even really try to hide it. I was never a Harry Potter fan, so it's really no skin off my back. It doesn't surprise me, however, that she has latent socially conservative tendencies, as anybody who has seriously engaged in scrutiny of her fiction works can see that subtext at play.</p><p></p><p>Happily, almost all major feminist groups in North America stand in solidarity with Trans people, so this is mostly an issue British and European feminism is facing, not in the US and Canada.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You see it as ugly, I see it as defensiveness in a world that too often dismisses transpeople as mad or bad. Feminists that play to toxic and hurtful stereotypes of transpeople deserve to be severely criticized, as that kind of indignity is really a betrayal of principles that are fundamental to human dignity.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If it's not possible, why talk about it, then? Obviously words can communicate experiences in a mediated way. People in widely disparate cultures have recognized profound value in communication and friendship precisely because it leads to a deeper sharing of experiences.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are biological females really the most oppressed group that is possible to conceive? And isn't this race to create a hierarchy of oppression with women at the bottom just a way to avoid the obvious reality of intersectionality, that merely because one is a female doesn't mean one can't also be an oppressor in some way?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It depends on what congregation you belong to. The Church has no official stance on the issue as to whether congregations have to recognize somebody's gender transition through a rite. They certainly permit people to believe alot of offensive stuff and call it Christian, and many have very traditional views on gender and even sexuality.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Noted. I just think you are taking a bit too much offense at things that are really more internet phenomena than reflecting real-world politics in the US. Trans people in general in the US are fighting for their lives, sometimes quite literally (especially in communities of color), they are not generally fighting to be gatekeepers of gender orthodoxy. They just want institutions to have policies that don't denigrate or exclude them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not presenting myself as just another male authority figure. I'm somebody with a personal stake in the issue, and I was appealing to your sense of compassion, but it seems you want to turn this into some kind of discussion about abstractions and political ideologies that frighten you, and I have no dog in that race.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FireDragon76, post: 75143716, member: 330042"] [USER=395596]@Silmarien[/USER], it's not at all clear that patriarchy as we understand it is universal across time. It may be that it was something that was part of the agricultural revolution as power was centralized within human settlements. In which case, oppression of women, at least of the sort that feminists in our culture object to the most strongly, wouldn't be intrinsic to their biology, but a byproduct of particular arrangements of human society that are culturally conditioned. It makes sense when Christian ideology is the main fuel in our culture for transphobia. I have already pointed out how Buddhists, for instance, are not necessarily hostile to transsexualism, that this is something that is mostly confined to western culture's construction of gender. I'm just saying traditional, uncritically reformed Christianity is not really your friend here, since Christians typically will say that motherhood is natural and things like President Obama saying that women are potentially "punished" by pregnancy is deplorable and sub-Christian. No, I think me and most transpeople are very aware of that. But I also am aware that the human condition is not limited by history, particularly white European history. Again, it's likely in our prehistory that women had more autonomy. I have an anthropology background and I actually know that pre-contact Native American tribes had alot more respect for the sovereignty of women over their own bodies. In the Cherokee society, for instance, there was no question that a woman had an absolute right over her own body in matters of procreation. I think you misunderstand, I'm not the one arguing for gender essentialism. If I don't believe in gender essentialism, how could I believe I can define "the essence of womanhood"? FWIW, I am a philosophical nominalist (as are Buddhists in general, but so is most modern philosophy) and I don't believe that concepts are anything but conventions. There are no shortages of people who claim to be activists but are in fact maladjusted people with narcissistic or even sociopathic tendencies out to manipulate others for their own benefit. But most large LGBT and feminists organizations don't engender that sort of thing, and it's specifically that sort of advocacy I am speaking from, against the blanket assertions by social conservatives, rooted in a conservative Christian ethos, that crude biological reductionism should define ones gender and be enshrined into law. Yes. I'm no fan of the Red Pill crowd, and I don't line up with their ideology at all. They are social conservatives angry because they can't navigate a changing world, which is very different from the place I am coming from. J.K. Rowling is transphobic and she doesn't even really try to hide it. I was never a Harry Potter fan, so it's really no skin off my back. It doesn't surprise me, however, that she has latent socially conservative tendencies, as anybody who has seriously engaged in scrutiny of her fiction works can see that subtext at play. Happily, almost all major feminist groups in North America stand in solidarity with Trans people, so this is mostly an issue British and European feminism is facing, not in the US and Canada. You see it as ugly, I see it as defensiveness in a world that too often dismisses transpeople as mad or bad. Feminists that play to toxic and hurtful stereotypes of transpeople deserve to be severely criticized, as that kind of indignity is really a betrayal of principles that are fundamental to human dignity. If it's not possible, why talk about it, then? Obviously words can communicate experiences in a mediated way. People in widely disparate cultures have recognized profound value in communication and friendship precisely because it leads to a deeper sharing of experiences. Are biological females really the most oppressed group that is possible to conceive? And isn't this race to create a hierarchy of oppression with women at the bottom just a way to avoid the obvious reality of intersectionality, that merely because one is a female doesn't mean one can't also be an oppressor in some way? It depends on what congregation you belong to. The Church has no official stance on the issue as to whether congregations have to recognize somebody's gender transition through a rite. They certainly permit people to believe alot of offensive stuff and call it Christian, and many have very traditional views on gender and even sexuality. Noted. I just think you are taking a bit too much offense at things that are really more internet phenomena than reflecting real-world politics in the US. Trans people in general in the US are fighting for their lives, sometimes quite literally (especially in communities of color), they are not generally fighting to be gatekeepers of gender orthodoxy. They just want institutions to have policies that don't denigrate or exclude them. I'm not presenting myself as just another male authority figure. I'm somebody with a personal stake in the issue, and I was appealing to your sense of compassion, but it seems you want to turn this into some kind of discussion about abstractions and political ideologies that frighten you, and I have no dog in that race. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
HUD rolls back protections on transgender individuals
Top
Bottom