[Transphobia Warning] Nutomic’s Stance on Transgender People (lemmy.ca)

submitted 3 months ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 57 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

“If the capitalists are ok with something it must be bad”

Classic

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Same reasoning that leads to people praising authoritarian regimes like China and Russia.

[-] cacheson@piefed.social 19 points 3 months ago

Yikes. Is there any further context available? Not that it would improve anything, I'm just curious.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

https://lemmy.world/comment/11541457

[-] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago

check out !fediverselore@lemmy.ca

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Pretty much the only other time I have seen any transphobia on Lemmy is from a .ml user who called someone a chaser for saying they were married to a femboy. These people don't actually care about LGBT issues - they are just trolls who use it as a cudgel when it is convenient.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago

Wow, spread this everywhere dude. Also make note that they're a lemmy dev

[-] r3df0x@7.62x54r.ru 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That's pretty shitty but not surprising for tankies.

[-] rain_worl@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

bourgoisie is based B)

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

why are all your comments downvoted?

[-] rain_worl@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

seems like all the comments are gone!
perhaps people misconstrued it as bourgeoisie being based for transphobia, not the trans itself?

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago

wat? no, i mean all of your comments don't have upvotes

[-] rain_worl@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

perhaps jovial?

[+] lulztard@feddit.org -7 points 3 months ago

Can someone explain to someone out of the loop what's transphobic about his post?

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago

Saying that the topic of "caring about transgender and LGBT issues" is promoted by the bourgeois is clearly not intended to indicate they respect those communities concerns.

The "men in women's sports" thing is just straight up transphobic, sexist misinformation.
It shouldn't need to be explained, but using "trans" as a label to attack a woman to delegitimize her sporting victory is just a hot mess of issues.

[+] index@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 months ago

You are taking what they said out of context

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

First, no, I'm not. I said that having read the full context of the comment.

Second, what context do you think would make what they said not transphobic? I don't think there is one, so even if taken out of context, which it wasn't, it would be as I said.

[+] index@sh.itjust.works -10 points 2 months ago

How is what they said transphobic? They said the transgender topic is clearly promoted by the bourgeoisie, which is true: mass media are owned by a bunch of rich people in bed with the government and in the past years the transgender topic has been push all over the news. In case you didn't notice he made an example that they went as far as putting lbgt flags on government buildings. That was a direct reply to someone saying that the bourgeoisie were promoting transphobia. They were answering back and giving their opinion. If you attack this person over this i'm lead to believe that your bad intentions are way worst than his alleged transphobia.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

going as far as putting lgbt flags on government buildings

In and of itself, the allegation that the only reason people might want to do some sort of show of solidarity or support for a historical marginalized community is because it's being pushed by non-specific monied interests for non-specific reasons is transphobic.
So is the notion that it's in the public discourse only because of big money. I'd argue it's because there's been a massive transphobic pushback against civil rights by religious fundamentalists and conservative groups. They run for office on culture was issues, so transphobia is a campaign issue.

When was the last time a civil rights issue was pushed by the bourgeoisie?
When was the last time someone said "this is being pushed by the bourgeoisie and big money" about something they approved of?

Putting up a flag at a government building is an extremely low bar to saying something is backed by powerful money.

allowing biological men to compete in women's sports at the Olympics.

Just going to skip over that bit? Echoing an entirely fabricated claim that someone is trans as an attack on that person is clearly swinging some transphobia around.

Replying to someone and sharing your opinion doesn't make your opinion not transphobic if it's, you know: "a transphobic opinion".
As I said, I read the context. Saying trans rights are part of a bourgeois conspiracy isn't better when it's in response to someone saying transphobia is part of a bourgeois conspiracy. It's a transphobic opinion regardless of why you're sharing it.

What, pray tell, are my alleged "bad intentions"? Should I ponder what your bad intentions are for jumping in to defend transphobia, unprompted, weeks after the fact?

[+] index@sh.itjust.works -7 points 2 months ago

In and of itself, the allegation that the only reason people might want to do some sort of show of solidarity or support for a historical marginalized community is because it’s being pushed by non-specific monied interests for non-specific reasons is transphobic.

They are not saying that it's the only reason, they are pointing out something and it happens to be true, they are pointing it out because someone else mentioned the argument.

I’d argue it’s because there’s been a massive transphobic pushback against civil rights by religious fundamentalists and conservative groups.

This had me to read his original comment again and i have to admit i misunderstood something, i thought he implies that the bourgeoisie were doing both: promoting it and pushing transphobia. (which seem what they are doing)

I guess his reply sounds kinda cold but i still feel like you a bunch of old men yelling at clouds, if you care about the topic and are concerned about it you should go spend your time and resources against actual transphobes and not chasing after people comments like the inquisition.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago

Dude, I replied to a comment on an image post. You're the one who resurrected a month idle conversation to defend transphobia and call recognizing transphobia "the inquisition".

Why do you give a shit what other people talk about?

[-] index@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 months ago

This thread is pinned in this sub

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

Okay? That doesn't obligate you to res a dead thread or act like anyone in it cares as much as you seem to.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Alright, that's enough.

Index is allowed to comment in old threads, anyone is.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

Sure, never said they weren't. But comparing a conversation that stopped a month ago to the inquisition justifies pointing out that the conversation ended a while ago, so maybe people aren't going after someone as they seem to think.

Telling people talking about transphobia that they should spend their time doing something else invites an observation that the conversation had seemingly moved on, and they're the one bringing it up again.

[+] lulztard@feddit.org -16 points 3 months ago

This entire train of conversation seems bizarre to me. While I don't know the intention, the topic is being promoted by companies. Fervently. And having to embezzle "biological" from the sentence doesn't leave a good feel, either.

This feels more like an ideological war than an factual war.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago

Are you referring to the topic of "lgbtq people deserve rights", or are you referring to "the boxer is a woman"? And when you say "embezzle biological from the sentence", what do you mean? I think I know, but I would like to be clear.

To be entirely clear: Imane Khelif, the Algerian women's Olympic boxer, is a cis, born, biological, genetic, assigned female at birth, raised as a woman, anatomical, woman. Trans women are also women, but in this case she is not a trans woman, so the whole thing is just multiple levels of awful and gross.
All controversy surrounding her is factually inaccurate, transphobic and sexist, which is quite the combo.

Lgbtq rights and respect are entirely an ideological issue. I don't think anyone argued that it wasn't. Lgbtq rights are human rights, and human rights beliefs are intrinsically ideological.
They're not being promoted by companies, they're being leveraged or "exploited* by companies who have realized that human rights are popular.
The objective is to get money from people. What other objective do you think a company would have? Do you think they're trying to promote being trans for some reason?

[+] lulztard@feddit.org -9 points 3 months ago

What has some Algerian boxer to do with all of this? I feel like I'm missig 27 layers of hate.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

Middle of the image you're responding to, when they refer to "allowing biological men to compete in women's sports at the Olympics".

Said Algerian boxer became the center of claims that she was actually trans and competing against women unfairly after she punched another boxer in the face, like boxers do, and the other boxer had to drop out on account of "face all messed up".

See my previous comment for a breakdown on the validity of that claim, and maybe some understanding of why it's just a big pile of ignorance and hate.

[+] lulztard@feddit.org -15 points 3 months ago

I see. Okay, so I checked WTF you're all talking about and it seems like an XY woman wrecked a XX women, which I also feel is bullshit considering the massive biological difference. Not sure what that has to do with a phobia of any kind, though.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago

swing and a miss. Remember that big part where I talked about how she's a woman in every possible sense of the word? Read that again.

You're looking at the hate and then just believing it. Don't.

[-] friendlymessage@feddit.org 8 points 3 months ago

The part at the beginning up to the middle

[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net -1 points 3 months ago

Don't also forget the ending as well. The whole FUCKING thing is transphobic

[-] friendlymessage@feddit.org 6 points 3 months ago

The part about the firefox plugin?

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago

Now that it's been explained to you, can you explain to us what was so hard to understand that you needed it explained to you?

[-] lulztard@feddit.org -4 points 3 months ago

The "intentions" everyone seemed to be reading into the post. Outsiders can only take the statement on face value.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024

87 points (85.4% liked)

MeanwhileOnGrad

1337 readers

15 users here now

"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"

Welcome to MoG!

Meanwhile On Grad

Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!

What is a Tankie?

Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.

(caution of biased source)

Basic Rules:

Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.

Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.

Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.

Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.

Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.

Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.

You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

goat@sh.itjust.works

PugJesus@lemmy.world