Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Yep, what I said then.
This is a good example of why people who identify as conservative shouldn't be trying to moderate LGBTQ+ spaces, even if they identify somewhere in that spectrum themselves. Conservatism at its heart is fundamentally focused on determining how other people do not belong to your "in" group and do not deserve the same privileges and rights as you do. Put more famously, "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
You're not quite doing it here with your really badly couched transmedicalist take and your skirting around actually saying what you mean, but we all know what you mean so I'm not sure why you're being so coy about it.
Definitely not unique to conservativism. I think that's just a facet of humanity. Modern day progressivism is infamous for shooting itself in the foot with purity tests.
You misunderstand. People do have a strong tendency to do that, yes. Conservativism is about that, it enshrines that. You can have leftism without infighting. You can have LGBTQ+ without radical exclusion. You cannot have conservativism without exclusion of outgroups.
That's an excellent point, you're totally right. I just did a "both sides". There's a massive difference between the two, and I shouldn't have equated them.
I support protection for all kinds of people, both transsexual and transvestite. What I care about on this topic though is clarity and recognition of individuals, and being able to clearly talk about different demographics. That's simply impossible to do if you try to use the same word to refer to entirely different kinds of people and different situations.
How can you speak about homosexuality, if you call straight people "gay" and "homosexual"? it's impossible!
You accuse me of transmedicalism, but I'd argue against this accusation. "transmedicalism" is a word that's used to describe people with a different view, relating to gender identity and gender dysphoria with gender identity disorder, and is unrelated to transsexuals and our issues/needs. many transmedicalists also deny transsexuals exist.
As long as there's clarity in speech, and a recognition of my medical condition (transsexualism) without conflation or appropriation, then I'm happy. I don't mind supporting others with different situations. but I won't yield and forfeit my ability to speak about myself and my medical situation.
Fella, you described transgenderism as "pseudoscience" and a "harmful ideology". You don't get to go back and try to claim you're actually totally fine with it and just want everyone to be clear what they mean... Especially not when you still haven't actually said what you mean. You were very open about your in- and out-groups there.
This is what I find so baffling. You wear it on your sleeve, but the moment people actually address your big claimed grievance you back away and won't own it. At least if you're going to side with the bigots that want you dead, don't be such a fucking coward about it.