Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

Freux wrote

They rephrase something transphobic into words they believed to be not transphobic but the problem weren't the words, it was the meaning behind them, a few tried to explain this to them but they kept denying there was a problem in what they wrote. At this point you aren't listening and defending transphobia, therefore they were transphobic.

For the paedophilia thing, it's pretty clear just reading the shit they wrote. Even if what you are saying is true (I doubt it), the problem isn't only about if something is damaging or not, it's about children cannot consent and that paedophilia is a sexual deviance and acting on it make you a child rapist no matter what the kid says. If you need simpler term to understand, if i ask a child if i can punch them in the face and they say yes and i do so, it doesn't matter if the result is a crushed face or barely a scrape, it's that i've decided to punch a kid to start with that is wrong.

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

it was the meaning behind them

They were being argumentative and pedantic— the meaning behind it was, “why are you choosing to interpret them this way, when you could interpret them in this other way?” It wasn't cool, but it wasn't transphobic.

it's about children cannot consent and that paedophilia is a sexual deviance and acting on it make you a child rapist no matter what the kid say

that's a given, I'm not arguing against that at all­— and neither was /u/F3nd0

1

Freux wrote

I understand what they meant and people replied to them trying to make them understand the problem in what they wrote yet they continue to argue against the feeling of trans people. I understand that sometimes you need time to process and come to term that you were wrong but they left the conversation and never came back to it to apologies and show that they have learn which lead me to believe they still think the same which make them transphobic.

/u/F3nd0 would like to disagree with you:

https://raddle.me/f/AskRaddle/43281/comment/62871

"Legally they are unable to consent (and I suppose there's a good reason for that), but not ‘completely’ unable." -F3nd0

https://raddle.me/f/AskRaddle/43281/comment/62881

"I have simply asserted that it's not a black & white affair, but rather one with different possible shades. (And given that darker is worse, it could be black, several very dark shades of gray & white, for all I know." -F3nd0

Do I really need to explain how fucked up this is?

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

"Legally they are unable to consent (and I suppose there's a good reason for that), but not ‘completely’ unable." -F3nd0

Yea. They can't consent, but it's not like the capacity is completely non-existent. It's not sufficient, though.

Do I really need to explain how fucked up this is?

Come on. He literally just said that it varies— it can be somewhat damaging, horribly damaging, or anything in between. That's a given for anything, there's always variability no matter how horrific something is.

but they left the conversation and never came back to it to apologies and show that they have learn which lead me to believe they still think the same which make them transphobic.

They put mostly positive spins on sentences that technically could be interpreted as transphobic or trans-friendly, and then stubbornly defended them the whole thread. They're very stubborn, but that doesn't make them transphobic.

1

Freux wrote

What is so hard to understand that no matter what the kid says it's not consent. The capacity is non-existent. He said that paedophilia can be anywhere from black to white. That's saying that rape can be anywhere from black to white, because kids cannot give consent.

The problem weren't the sentences it was the meaning behind them and even though people told him it was wrong he still argued that it wasn't.

I'll stop there as all I'm doing is repeating myself.