this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
783 points (98.8% liked)
13744 readers
1560 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You got a problem with trans people? No? Then it wasn't talking about you. Christ, is that hard to understand?
When a group of people makes an "us vs them" against a minority, it forces the minority to use that language back. As a cishet person, your identity is being used as a weapon to harm trans people regardless if you're doing anything. Ignorance of the minorities plight can be weaponized to do more harm and that ignorance can be shielded through appeals to normalcy and tradition.
When you respond to that language with "not all cishet people" you signal that your support is contingent on you not losing anything (your ignorance is one of the things you can lose). Which can and will be used to weaponize more harm against the minority group.
I realize that I’m outnumbered here and that this is apparently an unpopular opinion, but nobody is forcing anyone to say “all x are y” because someone else is (I agree, in bad faith) doing the same thing.
You’ve both been quite rude to me and I’m done engaging you, but that’s the full extent of my point and I’m unconvinced by your rebuttals.
Ciao now 🫡
Legal documents are being made to say that all x (transgender individuals) are now y (the wrong gender) because someone else (the government) is making them say so.
I’ve never disputed that. I don’t know how reiterating that fact in any way supports the idea that it “forces” transgender individuals to use the same language to describe “all cishet” people.
That was my point. It always has been.
If I were visually impaired and protesting unsuccessfully for better accessibility in my work environments, I can’t imagine why I would make a claim in any capacity including the language “all sighted people”.