Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

6

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.