Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-6

F3nd0 wrote

Alternative translations assuming good faith:

  • I think adapting a body of different sex to your gender this well is surprising and impressive.
  • I'm not aware of anyone I know being trans, so the experience of consciously meeting a trans person is new to me.
  • I don't mind if the person I date has or used to have a mismatched body.
  • I include physical properties at birth in my understanding of who a ‘real woman’ is.
  • I'm glad I could learn this important fact about you and your history.
    • Or: I, for one, do mind if the person I date has or used to have a mismatched body, unlike the person from the third quote.
  • I think trans people are cool and admirable!
    • Or: I fetishize trans people.
  • Old habits die hard.
  • I don't have a problem with trans people.
9

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Your 'good faith' examples are strongly transphobic as well, and you appear to have missed the point of this article entirely.

Overall, this piece points to a set of hidden assumptions that underlie they way that global society treats trans people, and gives us a way to begin to learn how to identify transphobic language. In not understanding that you've only underlined the original transphobia.

Please do some work on understanding these things better for future engagements around these topics.

-3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

8

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

They really aren't. Which leads me to conclude that you're in the same boat as F3nd0. There's a trans101 in the sidebar of this forum it might be worthwhile for the both of you to grapple with some, but it should not take a lot of thinking to understand why their response was transphobic, and getting the basic capacity to do so is a worthwhile effort. Maybe some other users here will take the initiative to engage you on these topics; I can't.

-2

F3nd0 wrote

There's a trans101 in the sidebar of this forum it might be worthwhile for the both of you to grapple with some, but it should not take a lot of thinking to understand why their response was transphobic, and getting the basic capacity to do so is a worthwhile effort.

Following your suggestion, I have read the article. It presented me with little to no new information, and did not convince me that my response was transphobic. Going by the 101's definition of transphobia…

Transphobia is irrational fear and hatred of trans people. […] Transphobia is believing that we are out to rob you of your hetero-or-homosexuality. Transphobia is trans people being stared at, insulted, harassed, attacked, beaten, raped, and murdered for simply existing.

I believe the alternatives I have presented do not go to such lengths. None of them should paint trans people as someone less worthy or despicable. At the moment I only found two issues:

  • The first translation has questionable language on my part, seeing as some people (not including me) may reject the idea of ‘sex’.
  • The fourth translation is still easy to interpret as transphobic, but was mean to present poor word choice rather than malicious intent.

The translations are possible interpretations that show what people could mean by what they say. These interpretations are supposed to not be transphobic at large, and if you can (spare the time to) point out how some of them are doubtlessly transphobic, then, at your leisure, please do.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Can you clowns just stay out of the trans forum?

7

BunnyBop wrote

I was gonna point out point by point why the stuff you're saying is still transphobic or at least massively ignorant but I'm just going to summarize cause I'm tired.

-Trans people don't have "mismatched" bodies. While a lot of trans people do want changes to their bodies, saying their bodies are or were "mismatched" sounds like they aren't or weren't really their gender. People are the sex and gender they say they are. Example: a trans woman who hasn't transitioned is still a woman and is female. It also erases trans people who, for various reasons, don't want to change their bodies.

-I really would rather not be considered "cool and admirable" for being trans. It's not a fucking fashion trend. I just want to live as my gender. Instead of admiring me for "being brave", just make it easier for me to be in the world.

-Including physical requirements for womanhood or manhood or whatever gender a person is is transphobic. I don't even need to explain this.

-4

F3nd0 wrote

Trans people don't have "mismatched" bodies. While a lot of trans people do want changes to their bodies, saying their bodies are or were "mismatched" sounds like they aren't or weren't really their gender.

The term indeed points at people who would have preferred to be born in a body with different characteristics, whereas their current one doesn't match their feelings about themselves. It doesn't attempt to invalidate anyone's gender, but it somewhat supports the idea of certain predefined sexes, so I hope I see where the criticism is coming from.

I admit the term, when applied to all trans people, would mischaracterise those who don't feel their bodies to be mismatched, so that may have been a poor way to express my idea, in which case I apologise to those affected. (I have also lived in belief that the very idea of ‘transgender’ involves a mismatch, hence the name based on ‘trans’—over, across to somewhere else from where I was. Is that conviction fundamentally wrong, or did the name just gain broader meaning in certain circles over the time?)

However, that boils down to ignorance or lack of knowledge. The interpretations are still based in good faith, and the original messages do not inherently contain malice or transphobia. (And neither should my interpretation contain transphobia, based on the latter's definition in the local reference ‘101’.)

I really would rather not be considered "cool and admirable" for being trans.

Point taken. However, there's no malice or ignorance in finding someone (even a group of people sharing a common trait) ‘cool and admirable’. That only depends on everyone's personal feelings. Even if you don't like being viewed in that light, the people viewing you that way aren't being transphobic purely by doing so.

Including physical requirements for womanhood or manhood or whatever gender a person is is transphobic.

For gender, yes, seems obvious. I'm not entirely sure which translation this touches on; most likely seems the fourth one, where it boils down to one's understanding and usage of certain words and concepts.

6

selver wrote (edited )

What's up with your need to try to invalidate the feelings of trans people? The title says "what we hear", do you really need to try to tell people they are wrong when they tell you how things you say affect them?

Most of your new translations are transphobic even in good faith.

-6

F3nd0 wrote

The title says "what we hear", do you really need to try to tell people they are wrong when they tell you how things you say affect them?

Nowhere did I write that people do not interpret the sayings in the presented way, nor did I write that their interpretations are wrong. I have simply presented alternative interpretations, which could be just as valid as the original ones. It should be very well possible to interpret each of the translations in a non-transphobic way (perhaps save for the fourth one, which just has very poor wording).

Should you find that this is not the case, you are welcome to point out why. I have faith in my translations, but I am interested in why you find them irreconcilable.

6

BunnyBop wrote

Trans people don't need you to translate for them. The piece is titled "what trans people hear" not "pls cissie, explain to us what you really mean". It's intention is to express the experience of trans people. We don't need you to provide the experience of cis people, as if we've never encountered it.

-3

F3nd0 wrote

Yes, nobody asked me to write the alternative translations; I did so on my own initiative. It's okay if they're of no use to you.

3

BunnyBop wrote

They're not just of no use to me. You are in the Trans subraddle. Have some fucking respect.

-4

F3nd0 wrote

Posting alternative translations/interpretations is not disrespectful. (Their content could be, but we're already talking about that in a different comment thread.)

4

BunnyBop wrote

I already told you we don't need you to translate for us. The fact that you continue to argue even though the people in this thread, some of which are trans, have told you to knock it off is disrespectful.

I haven't even mentioned the implied assertion that we should just take cis people in good faith but I think I will now. Cis people don't deserve that and doing so can be dangerous for the most marginalized of us. If I just give a cis person the benefit of the doubt when they say skeevey things, it could end up badly for me if I am ever put in a vulnerable position, even moreso for other trans people. Cis people have not earned the right to have the benefit of the doubt and they will not get it from me.

-4

F3nd0 wrote

I already told you we don't need you to translate for us.

And again, I didn't provide the alternatives because someone needed them and asked me. I put them out there for the case that anyone would find interest or benefit in them. You're free to find them useless for yourself, as is everyone else, for whom you're speaking.

The fact that you continue to argue even though the people in this thread, some of which are trans, have told you to knock it off is disrespectful.

As a matter of fact, I don't remember anyone asking me to stop arguing. People have presented me with criticism of my comment, to which I have replied, either defending/clarifying my comment, or asking for clarification of theirs. If any of them had asked me to end the discussion, I would have ended it. (And if you ask me now, I will respect your wish as well.)

For that matter, I won't take one's will for another. If someone asks me to stop talking to them, I won't talk to them, but it will be no reason to stop talking to others who have not expressed the same wish, until they do (or end the talk themselves, as some may already have). All I had so far is one request to choke, and while I have not granted it, you may see I did not pester that person with any replies.

I haven't even mentioned the implied assertion that we should just take cis people in good faith but I think I will now.

My comment implies that you can, not that you should. Whether one will or won't is entirely up to them, and I presume each trans person would also be the most authorised to make the right decision for themselves.

3

rot wrote

#2 is the only one that makes sense because there are people who have never interacted with someone who openly ids as trans. I've met people who claim to have never met anyone LGBT+

So ignorance is possible but you would have to assume that they have never heard of trans ppl

#4 is still transphobic. It's implying that without certain genitalia their gender isn't valid