Remote View
Nutomic’s Stance on Transgender People
Nutomic’s Stance on Transgender People
You're viewing a single thread.
207 comments
-
Context?
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
hm can you link to an example of posts that fits the description "pushing you to distrust trans activists"?
-
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
-
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/
-
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.
-
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 :|
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
-
Authoritarianism is a mental disorder. You can never expect reasonable thought from them
-
They do not understand the concept of gaining grassroots' support through the use of education.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
(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.
-
- Yes. Fruedianism is psuedoscience. That's why I'd never deal in it.
- Saying childhood traumas don't shape us is fucking embarrassing when you're trying to present yourself as being in the know
- Saying spanking isn't traumatic makes me think I don't even have to deal with the rest of what you say
- 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
- 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.
- 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
-
-
-
-
-
-
Is this your own conversation with him?
-
Yeah, I spoke with them.
-
-
Lost me at 'Why do they need to be "rooted out"?'.
Welp, they're a piece of shit.
-
Yeah kind of buried the lede, you don't need to unpack political ideologies to understand the hatred in the first response.
-
-
This context just makes you both look silly.
-
That is a false equivalence as I did not state hate speech
-
I'm not sure how this is hate speech from nutomic? They're not necessarily saying anything bad about trans people as far as I can see, only that the bourgeoisie have nothing to do with it? Or what am I missing here
-
Looks at the terms they used.
-
Ok sorry I'm not seeing it, which terms? Genuinely asking
-
“Biological men” is a transphobic term to describe trans women
-
It is? Shit I thought it was just a longer form of "amab". Language changes so quickly...
-
I'm not saying nutomic isn't a raging tankie and transphobe (they definitely are as per the post) but I don't see how saying biological male is the transphobic part?
There is much more obvious transphobia to point out here such as the claim that "the trans agenda" is being pushed by "the bourgeoisie". Last time I checked trans people experience intense discrimination which makes it very hard for them to be part of "the bourgeoisie", and a majority of media pushing against trans people is 110% owned by "the bourgeoisie"
-
-
-
-
-
This is even sillier
-
-
Their reply prior to the borgeoise rant was downright odd, you're right about that.
-
-
-
207 comments