Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Allegations of transphobia Mod Advisory post #42

124»

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    "Irish" is a funny one. I think like you I also rather say where I am from than what I am. But when I think about it, I would feel one or two more traits I actually do identify with would be communicated if I called myself "Irish" than if I called myself "man" or "atheist". Or at least a lot more of the stereotype assumptions someone would make upon hearing "irish" would be accurate.
    Interesting distinction. Yes, perhaps if one were to travel around the world and have people list attributes which they associate with "irish", "man" and "atheist", they might match more attributes with "Irish" than the others.

    At least when you say you're "from Ireland", at least you're conveying accurate, unambiguous information - though first-hand experience indicates that much of the world has only the vaguest idea where Ireland is, or what cultural things dominate here - Guinness, soccer + trad music are the most commonly known things, but none of these are of much interest to me beyond use as topics of conversation.

    And for reasons I've never established, people from quite a few countries hear "Holland" when I say "Ireland", even when dramatically rolling the "R" in "Ireland" - so even the "Hola, soy de Irlanda/привет, я с Ирландии" frequently fails to convey anything useful.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    Can't speak for anybody else, but I spent six years in a boys-only secondary boarding school and male-to-male attraction was well-known and talked about, though typically as a threat or insult.As above, no, I don't think so.

    Even in a very liberal co-ed secondary in the late 70s and early 80s myself, homosexuality was jeered and laughed by most and openly so in the media. It was also illegal at that point in time. Jumping forward a few decades and we're largely over that hateful nonsense. As per my previous post, the comparison to evolving attitudes towards transsexuality are pretty obvious in that regard.

    I think we are a considerably more tolerant society in this country today than we have been in the past. I for one look forward to this progression continuing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    robindch wrote: »
    Can't speak for anybody else, but I spent six years in a boys-only secondary boarding school and male-to-male attraction was well-known and talked about, though typically as a threat or insult.As above, no, I don't think so.
    I should have made the "if" more obvious in my sentence :)

    Imagine there was no stigma against homosexuality. But imagine more than that - imagine nobody even knew it existed.

    In that case, you wouldn't even think of "straight" as a thing. Because there was no "other". In fact, you'd probably resent if someone came along and started using the term "straight" to describe you.
    This is analogous to transgenderism. Until recently for most people there was no "other". Sex and gender, inextricable.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    seamus wrote: »
    Imagine there was no stigma against homosexuality. But imagine more than that - imagine nobody even knew it existed.
    Or - better still - imagine a world where people were as unconcerned about whom others found attractive, as they are about what foods others like to eat, or comedians they enjoy, or music they like to listen to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ^ While I agree 100% with the sentiment of your post, your examples did give me a giggle given.... especially over on After Hours..... just how irate people DO get about the music and comedians people are into..... and what foods people eat is one of the top 10 trigger flash point topics I have ever seen on forums :)

    But absolutely.... a world where people were entirely unconcerned by such things would be the ideal world. Just like much of my policies and attitudes to race are based around being as color blind as possible in most situations.

    But I wonder..... again from my relative extreme ignorance here..... if that is another reason for the venom THIS particular topic engenders?

    On the abortion debates the common pro choice argument was "My body my business". On the debates about homosexuality the position was often "What two consenting adults do in their own bedroom has nothing to do with you".

    But on THIS topic is there more a tendency away from the "demand for privacy" based arguments and more towards the opposite? Demands that OTHERS act in a certain way, use certain words, open their public bathrooms or sports in new ways, and more? Is the Transgender community at a disadvantage here that the homosexual community or the pro choice community for example never were.... in that much of what they require or seek is external to their private affairs rather than internal to them? Or are my navel gazing musings here totally on the wrong track entirely?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    But I wonder..... again from my relative extreme ignorance here..... if that is another reason for the venom THIS particular topic engenders?

    No more than intuition, but I think the phrase "haters gonna hate" is quite appropriate here. In my experience, there is a significant cohort of people out there actively looking for others to shít on. This could because they're unhappy themselves, they're insecure and feel the need to publicly vilify others to prop up their own fragile egos, they're defending a discriminatory status quo that gives them undue favour, they're simply bullies or all of the above. I think the trans community is in the cross hairs first and foremost because they're a soft target. It used to be different races, homosexuals, or anyone else a bit different who stuck their head over the parapet wall. As a life-long second generation atheist, a weedy kid in my younger days, and someone with a strong English accent growing up, I've been that soft target myself in the past. Gay folks had it way worse, trans folks continue to have it worse. I strive to look for this type of behaviour, as much in myself as in others FWIW, and when I see it, address it. Tell tale signs online are posts starting "I'm all for live and let live, but..." or "I've no issue with trans people, but..."


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Yeah agreed. There is always going to be that cohort of people who derive their own sense of self worth from the derision or detriment of others.

    But as you say yourself they have had others in their cross hairs before. The question I understand asked in the OP was why does this topic seem to garner significantly more venom than others.

    So if the question was where does the venom come from.... your answer would be absolutely on the button for identifying one of the many sources.

    But if the question is why does this topic have relatively more venom.... does "haters gonna hate" help us as much there if they are somewhat consistent across those domains? Or is there reason to suggest they are more active, numerous, or effective on this topic for any reason?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Yeah agreed. There is always going to be that cohort of people who derive their own sense of self worth from the derision or detriment of others.

    But as you say yourself they have had others in their cross hairs before. The question I understand asked in the OP was why does this topic seem to garner significantly more venom than others.

    So if the question was where does the venom come from.... your answer would be absolutely on the button for identifying one of the many sources.

    But if the question is why does this topic have relatively more venom.... does "haters gonna hate" help us as much there if they are somewhat consistent across those domains? Or is there reason to suggest they are more active, numerous, or effective on this topic for any reason?

    Homophobia a few decades back was pretty damn aggressive too, as was treatment of unmarried mothers before that. Currently, Islamophobia isn't any too pretty either. I suspect the big difference with transphobia is that it is attacking a tiny minority who are nonetheless very visible and present as a soft target. I further suspect that more hard-line conservatives of various ilks are behaving like cornered rats as they watch their once dominant position in society getting increasingly eroded over time. We are moving to a model where society is deciding what is good and bad for society, as opposed to having to unquestioningly accept anachronistic dogma. Could be that transphobia to some extent is a kick back against this.


Advertisement