this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
306 points (84.9% liked)

FediLore + Fedidrama

2280 readers
857 users here now

Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)

Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.

Includes lore like how a instance got it's name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc

(New) This sub's intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don't get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama

Tags: fediverse news, lemmy news, lemmyverse

Partners:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 61 points 3 months ago (6 children)
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 60 points 3 months ago (1 children)

His argumentation is dumb.

But even more so, IF the bourgeoisie were promoting pro-trans stuff. It would NOT be suprising that the bourgeoisie would ALSO be promoting anti-trans stuff. It fans the flame of this “culture war”which according to communist theory, would distract people from realising the “true divide” in society is class, and workers to unite.

TLDR: He’s clearly a conservative of some sort because his logic is incompatible with communist theory.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

This is in fact what Russian bot factories are actually doing. And not just around trans activism, but around everything they can use to increase hatred and decrease social cohesion in the west. Here's one source that talks about this problem: https://www.amazon.com/Putins-Trolls-Frontlines-Russias-Information/dp/1632461293

They're doing it pretty well. As a practical example, a lot of the discussion revolving around this topic is powerfully pushing me towards distrusting trans activists, and somewhat towards distrusting trans people in general. There's something deeply irritating about the fundamentalism of it all -- it reminds me of the kind of religiosity that we had to fight against a lot in the 1900s and of course earlier.

I need to remind myself constantly in these threads that trans rights are human rights and that it's the discussion that's fucked, not the people.

[–] Omniraptor@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

hm can you link to an example of posts that fits the description "pushing you to distrust trans activists"?

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Those threads are generally embarrasing already when they're happening, but especially in hindsight -- nevertheless here's one recent one I greatly enjoyed having https://sopuli.xyz/post/15328469/10919769

[–] Omniraptor@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that thread is pretty embarrassing. If you like, here's a post on the subject of definitions and category boundaries from a rationalist perspective. It's arguing p much same thing as @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world was talking about, but imo in a more compelling way https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Great article, thanks for that.

Quote from its 4th section:

then I ought to accept an unexpected man or two deep inside the conceptual boundaries of what would normally be considered female if it’ll save someone’s life.

I think the confusion (in my case) is that even though I think male and female are well-defined concepts based on biology, this fact does not preclude doing something special for the benefit of the remaining 1% who don't fit the definition. And it also doesn't preclude having a sexual identity that differs from the biological ones.

So I don't understand the leap from what I'm saying to accusing me of being transphobic, and by extension, evil in a somewhat religious sense. This is where it seems to me that the discussion is fucked.

And the accusation of being anti-scientific I thought was just wrong, but that's fine.

[–] Omniraptor@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

What do you mean by "doing something special" if not treating the trans man as a man and trans woman as a woman? If you are more specific maybe I can try to clarify why people might have thought it was transphobic.

And for the record I tend to agree with flyingsquid from the linked thread- definitions should be rigorous and accurately/comprehensively describe reality. You can't just declare "we're going to categorize by gametes" and sweep any incogruities under the rug, that's not how it should work, idk unless you're talking to literal 5 year old children. They were needlessly abrasive but essentially correct :|

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

What do you mean by “doing something special” if not treating the trans man as a man and trans woman as a woman? If you are more specific maybe I can try to clarify why people might have thought it was transphobic.

I mean pretty much just that in the general sense. I'm not sure where the confusion about this rose from. Perhaps from the context of some sports, where drawing the line is not this easy?

And for the record I tend to agree with flyingsquid from the linked thread- definitions should be rigorous and accurately/comprehensively describe reality.

Agreed. Difference is that I think the biological definition describes reality very well, even if not perfectly. It doesn't seem to me that any competing definition is doing a better job.

But it's perfectly fine not to 100% agree about this. It's the insinuation (that I might be imagining) of being evil that's disturbing.

[–] Omniraptor@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah for sports idk what to do, none of the solutions I think of seem to fit. Sports are designed to be unfair it's a competition after all. And apparently in women's sports accusing competitors you dislike of being a man is just a thing we do (if not the athletes themselves then the general public). Biology is weird and biology of Olympic level athletes is going to be even more weird and deviant.

As for definitions, the competing definition being argued for in the article is self id, with several anecdotes detailing why this is a better idea than gamete size or chromosomes or whatever.

[–] xnx 48 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Puts transphobes in quotation marks, bans everything he considers “sinophobia” even if you just mention literal policy in china. why are tankies so weird about so much stuff

[–] Quill7513 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Authoritarianism is a mental disorder. You can never expect reasonable thought from them

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 months ago

They do not understand the concept of gaining grassroots' support through the use of education.

[–] xnx 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Don’t equate authoritarianism with mental disorders or disabilities. Authoritarians love targeting the disabled and it has nothing to do with it. People being miseducated, propagandized, and their insecurities leading them to want authoritarians in control has nothing to do with mental disorders

[–] Quill7513 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I really mean it though. Authoritarianism is a trauma response to being abused as a child. Our brains when raised in an authoritarian household that punishes us through physical violence like spanking becomes much more likely to seek authority from positions of power in adulthood, and if there becomes a power vaccuum or a shift away from top down authority, we transform ourselves from the follower to the leader. Whether or not authoritarians victimize people with mental disorders and disabilities is immaterial. They victimize every single group they can marginalize because they were ultimately empty from the childhood trauma that they've glossed over and turned into a positive aspect of their upbringing. Anytime you hear "my parents spanked me, and I turned out find" you are hearing a twisted mind grappling with an extreme trauma and justifying the shitty person they've become because if they don't, it means they haven't survived their core trauma yet

[–] GatanKult@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

freudianism is pseudoscience, as is most discourse around "child traumas" (spanking = trauma? really? that's absurd concept creep). Just look at the recovered memory movement.

While it often took weeks or months, by all accounts, the therapists were remarkably successful at convincing patients that their minds had hidden horrible abuse memories.

because childhood memories remain in the liminal period of awareness, you can convince yourself that personality is built on childhood experiences. It's an insane tabula rasa and simply not true.

wants strong government = beaten as a child is a terrible pop-sci take, exactly the same as chuds saying all gay men were molested as children

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

(spanking = trauma? really? that’s absurd concept creep).

Please stop. Anything can be traumatic. Two people can have the same experience; one receives trauma and another does not. You likely know people who have trauma from parental violence. This isn't rhetorical, the things you say affect people.

[–] Quill7513 7 points 3 months ago
  1. Yes. Fruedianism is psuedoscience. That's why I'd never deal in it.
  2. Saying childhood traumas don't shape us is fucking embarrassing when you're trying to present yourself as being in the know
  3. Saying spanking isn't traumatic makes me think I don't even have to deal with the rest of what you say
  4. Yes. Recovered memory is a bunch of bunked up bullshit. Again. I'd never deal in it. You really are focused on tearing down what I'm saying based on shit I never said
  5. Yo, you think fucking cihldhood memories end when you start having more awareness? We're talking about the entire lived experience of being a child in an adults household. That shit ends when you leave for college. Again. You're really focused on saying I'm saying something I'm not saying, so actually, genuinely, fuck off.
  6. Saying this is a pop-sci take is probably the only real thing you said in all this. And there's a difference between "wants a strong government" and "wants a dictator" and that's what I was addressing. I'll drop some links and let people coming across this decide which of us is basing what they're saying off current understandings of how brains work
[–] Ambii@lemmy.ml 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is this your own conversation with him?

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 30 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I spoke with them.

[–] Goodie@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lost me at 'Why do they need to be "rooted out"?'.

Welp, they're a piece of shit.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah kind of buried the lede, you don't need to unpack political ideologies to understand the hatred in the first response.