Are you comfortable enough to be an activist for LGBTQ+ community?

[Birdie]

8 minutes ago, MaeBe said:

You've been an activist in is plainest form, getting those ladies to accept you, you are changing hearts and minds! 💪

Thanks hun, I have pushed the envelope just about a far as possible. Now it's just sit back and put up with it. 

[Betty K]

@Birdie I’m sorry, I thought you worked at the daycare place. But if you are a client there that’s even worse! What makes them think they have the right to dictate how you present yourself? 

[Birdie]

24 minutes ago, Betty K said:

What makes them think they have the right to dictate how you present yourself? 

Welcome to West Texas!

[awkward-yet-sweet]

18 hours ago, Betty K said:

It’s not what I wear that makes me stand out, but the fact that it’s a 6’2” trans woman wearing it. And believe me, I do stand out. I met a man the the other day who remembered having seen me....

 

Your mention of the newspaper cartoon is telling. Basically any unusual-looking subculture of people is liable to end up being the butt of such jokes and caricatures. You seem to be advocating that therefore everyone should strive to look as ordinary as possible, in case they end up in a newspaper cartoon. Not everyone is so thin-skinned.
 

I don’t understand what the link is between your assault (about which, obviously, I was sorry to hear) and the fact that certain LGBTQ+ young folks look a certain way. If you don’t look anything like those people, what is the connection?

 

The abuse existed long before the blue-haired trans kids did.

The problem is that your focus seems to be entirely on asking victims to change rather than abusers. But my question is this: DO you care about the people whose choices you are criticising?

 

Incidentally, there’s an issue even more divisive than blue hair and piercings that conservatives just can’t stop talking about: gender-affirming care for trans children?

 

Also, you still didn’t clarify in what ways trans folk are not accepting family’s structures.

Dear me, lots to unpack here, and lots of questions.  I'll do my best 😉

 

First let me say, I'm sorry you're having the experience of standing out and being noticed and followed around.  That has got to be so uncomfortable!!!  I think it must be worse for MtF folks than FtM folks, and other varieties of us.  There's the sex fetish thing in culture these days.  My two trans friends experience it, but I don't (I'm in my boy form, which I guess isn't attractive?) 

 

I disagree with your interpretation of the newspaper cartoon issue.  It isn't about being thin-skinned or simply wanting to avoid being a caricature.  It is about not wanting to match up with a socially negative image - its like the equivalent of not wanting to be seen as Japanese or German during WW2.  Whether the image is fair or not, it exists and it has made being associated with it rather dangerous.  When people here find out anything personal about me, do you know what happens?  I start having to answer all kinds of questions about politics - how I'm a person of faith, how I'm not a Democrat voter, how I'm not in favor of Biden..... it can get really pointed.  I'm safe because I can prove my "bona fides" as my husband calls it.  My two trans friends live here close to me now, and the interesting thing is that they are accepted for similar reasons.  It seems to be politics and fitting in with the community that matters, rather than gender/sex/etc. 

 

The link between the styles, appearances, and actions of others and me getting assaulted is related to the negative social image.  I feel like I could have tried harder to avoid the image, and maybe I would have avoided the pain I experienced.  And yeah, I give that advice to my friends.  They're younger than me, although not really by much.  I've done my best to help them find a place where they belong, show them some of the odd quirks of the local area to aid them in fitting in, and generally extend whatever shielding or privilege my family situation grants me.  Not sure if that's what you're getting at, not sure that's really relevant to activism, but its what I can do for now. 

 

Did the abuse exist before the negative image?  Sure... but I doubt it was to the extent we see now.  Of course, I'm younger than a lot of folks here.  I was in high school 15-20 years ago.  Not a huge school, but not tiny either.  I recall there being other LGBTQ+ folks there.  Not trans necessarily, but there was even an school club related to it.  While I merely identified as lesbian at the time, I don't recall beatings or hazing or other issues...it was generally "live and let live."  Now?  One of my friends is college-age, graduated 3 years ago.  She's had more difficulty.  Of course, I'm only comparing the local experiences of two people, but it seems like things are getting worse rather than better.  The issue of gender-affirming care for kids seems to be affected by this.  I don't recall it being discussed until recently.  My friends started their HRT while still minors, and had no issues getting it.  I doubt it would be as easy now, but I think the arguments against it can be overcome by advocating for parental choice.   That is something both political parties currently want to treat like a buffet and only pick certain items to apply the concept to.... probably one of the best frontiers for activism, really.   

 

Why do I focus on potential victims making prudent changes?  We can only control ourselves.  You can't make a robber less inclined to rob, or a rapist less rape-y.  Well, they can be put in prison after the fact, or perhaps shot or apprehended in the act, but that doesn't undo the damage.  You can limit your own exposure to risk.  You can encourage others not to participate in risky behavior.  It is the same reason why we shouldn't drink much alcohol in public places, why we shouldn't leave a drink unattended, or why perhaps we ought to carry something for self defense.  Being intentionally noticeable (which is not the same as being unavoidably noticeable) carries risk.  That saying so is apparently controversial seems to come down to a difference between your culture and mine....I doubt we're going to agree, no matter how much we write on it.   That doesn't make either of us wrong or right, heck we might both be wrong or right simultaneously. 😄

 

As for the family structure issue - I've avoided continuing that one, as it is a separate topic...and possibly overly contentious.  I had started a response, but I figured it would derail this topic for sure.  I don't mind discussions that wander, but management does, so I try to be somewhat cooperative.

[Betty K]

Standing out in public isn’t so bad. As I’ve said, most of the attention I receive is positive, comes from women, and has nothing to do with being fetishised. As to the attention I get from men, I do find it creepy when guys track me down on Grindr and I’m no longer on dating apps partly for that reason, but the most recent guy was polite and well-presented and spoke to me quite civilly in a cafe. I was slightly wary about his having noticed me in public a few times before approaching me, but as I said, I do stand out, and I’ll be honest, I was flattered. I did not presume he was a fetishist, but I didn’t rule it out. I am very careful about trying to avoid stalker situations.

 

The far more important point, and the point I’m hoping you’ll concede, is that visibility can be positive. I’ve said this so many times but I feel it bears repeating: I receive a lot of love from strangers. And I am unfailingly polite and warm in return. I just don’t see how that can be a bad thing for the trans community. To me, it seems entirely positive. And if you’ll recall, this entire conversation started when you told me that I should try to be less visible. 

 

Incidentally, there is one key way (aside from occasionally walking to or from my car at night alone) in which I put myself at risk, and that is by working with trans children. I am all too well aware of the popular narrative about trans women and child abuse and I know it is possible that, one day when I’m out walking with a client in a public park or similar, we may encounter one of a very small minority of virulently transphobic bigots. So for me, far from blaming blue-haired young trans folks for my lack of safety, I blame the people spreading lies about trans folk being child abusers: I blame UK “gender critical” activists, US Republicans, and certain segments of the American Christian right. 

 

I’m quite amazed by one aspect of your belief system, and that is the way you seem to continually deflect responsibility from one of the institutions most likely to harm us: the Republican Party. This applies to the discussion of sexual assault against women too, an issue which you seem to think is impossible to tackle except by influencing women’s clothing choices. But don’t you think that maybe NOT voting for a president who boasts about grabbing women’s genitals and has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault might help too? Don’t you think those kinds of attitudes trickle down to the wider culture even a little? (The millions of people who marched for women’s rights after the 2016 US election seemed to think so.) Likewise you seem to think that the only way to tackle violence against trans people is to influence how trans people present themselves in public, but don’t you think that NOT voting for a party that dehumanises us might help? The problem is not that you advise trans folks not to draw attention to ourselves, but that you pay only the merest lip service to the idea of fighting the people and institutions devoted to oppressing us. That is why I used the term “victim blaming”, because you seem far more critical of the victims than the abusers.
 

You say you doubt abuse of trans people was as prevalent in the past as it is now, but I find that unlikely. Or let’s say, sure, there may be more abuse of trans folk, but only because there are now so many more people who are willing to identify as trans. And again, we’d have to specify which part of the world we’re talking about. In Adelaide, Australia, where I grew up, in the late 70s young gay men were serially murdered over years. In Sydney in the 70s and 80s the same thing happened. (And understand, at that time, for legal purposes, trans women were “gay men”.) Trans showgirls in Sydney at that time report serial sexual abuse and violence from police. I’ve read stories of gangs of angry townsfolk arriving at trans women’s houses to humiliate and attack them. I’ve read, and heard, much worse stories of parental abuse of trans kids in the 70s and 80s. In Tasmania it was illegal to engage in gay sex or to appear in public dressed as “the opposite sex” until 1997. Meanwhile, trans visibility was virtually zero, with the only trans people the public ever saw generally being psychopaths or monsters or freaks or dead prostitutes in movies, virtually all of them transfeminine (transmasculine people were almost completely invisible). “Transgender” was not a word that anyone used in the 80s where I came from, and the idea that a trans child could even exist was not something I encountered until I was at least 30.
 

If you started high school 20 years ago then you started right near the beginning of what I would characterise as the golden age for trans folk, at least in the Anglo west.  By then, the AIDS epidemic had subsided and the related extreme homophobia of the 1980s had somewhat died away, while increasing numbers of trans children were being allowed to access hormones (thanks partly, in Australia, to the activism of young trans woman Georgie Stone and her mother). My impression is that until about five years ago trans rights and the general standing of trans folks in western society were at an all-time high, certainly since pre-colonial times. But, well, there was bound to be a backlash. 
 

Maybe in Texas or Utah things are worse for trans folk now than in 1980, but are you sure they’re not just different? Would you rather that transness be a taboo so absolute that you dare not even speak about it or that trans people were able to openly exist but sometimes suffered abuse? I would far, far prefer the latter. Of roughly 400 people in my high school in the 1980s, I was not aware of one who ever came out as gay or bi, let alone trans, and as I said, I was one of the freakiest most feminine-looking AMAB kids in the school; surely those gay kids would have trusted me. (In fact they did trust me; I later discovered that at least two of the younger kids who gravitated to me were gay, but they never said so. One of those gay people contacted me later to say how thankful they were for the example set by me and my best friend.)

 

In short, if you are in any way suggesting that we — western culture as a whole — would be better off going back to the way things were in those days, I couldn’t disagree more.

 

Lastly, I think you’ve avoided my question about gender-affirming care for trans kids. From where I’m standing it seems the Republicans are leading a witch-hunt against anyone who supports such medical practices. Would you therefore feel safer if trans people did not show our support? Would you advise us to distance ourselves from the issue? Historically, many trans folk did not want to advocate for trans kids for fear of being caught up in exactly the narrative we are caught up in now. And in my experience, suspicion around healthcare for trans kids is the primary concern in most people’s minds when it comes to trans-related issues — far more so than kids with blue hair. For my own part I have decided that I am willing to risk a great deal for this issue. Would you therefore say that I am endangering other trans folk with my reckless behaviour?

Oh, and I still don’t get the connection between some trans folk matching up with a “socially negative image” and your assault. It sounds to me like what you’re saying is that you actually matched, at least slightly, with that negative image and that is why you were assaulted. But isn’t that either (a) the assailant’s fault for being a bigot or (b) (if we’re victim blaming) your fault for resembling that negative stereotype? I still don’t understand how it’s some kid in Seattle’s fault for having blue hair. If that kid wants to risk assault for resembling that supposedly negative stereotype, isn’t that entirely within their rights? 
 

And don’t worry, I know we will not agree on this, at least not in this phase of life. 

[Birdie]

3 hours ago, Betty K said:

Lastly, I think you’ve avoided my question about gender-affirming care for trans kids.

In my specific case it was horrible!

 

Puberty was sending my body 'the wrong direction' according to my parents, so they went 'doctor shopping' until they found a sports doctor willing to do testosterone treatments for two years. It was the LAST THING I WANTED!. 

 

As a minor, I had no choice in the matter and went through the treatments only able to stop when I finally moved out. 

 

So I wonder how many cases are there like mine?

How many might still decide it's not the path they want later (I know one of them)?

Maybe puberty blockers as minors is okay, that gives the individuals time to think about it, but I'm not sure full gender affirming care is a good idea for minors. 

 

That's just my opinion. 

 

[Betty K]

37 minutes ago, Birdie said:

In my specific case it was horrible!

 

I think we've had this conversation before, Birdie. "Gender-affirming" means it affirms the child's felt sense of their own gender, not some doctor's or bossy parent's idea of what that gender should be. That fact that it was the last thing you wanted pretty much guarantees it was not gender-affirming.

 

39 minutes ago, Birdie said:

So I wonder how many cases are there like mine?

 

I have literally never heard of a case in which parents or doctors forced a child to transition against their will. I'm not saying it never happens but it must be very rare if so. On the other hand, I have heard of many intersex children who have endured forced surgeries, hormone therapy, etc. Please don't confuse forced treatment on intersex children with sought treatment on trans children.

 

40 minutes ago, Birdie said:

How many might still decide it's not the path they want later (I know one of them)?

 

We don't yet know how many given the recent surge in children presenting as trans, but early numbers suggest it will remain a very low percentage. I'm curious about the person you know. What is their story? Historically most "detransitioners" decide this path is not for them owing to societal pressure, not because their gender identity changes.

 

51 minutes ago, Birdie said:

Maybe puberty blockers as minors is okay, that gives the individuals time to think about it, but I'm not sure full gender affirming care is a good idea for minors.

 

It doesn't make sense to keep kids on puberty blockers until they turn 18. These drugs were not intended to be taken for so long and risks increase the longer kids stay on them. Also, who wants to remain prepubescent until 18? That could be very alienating. Some kids may need to start blockers as young as 12. And in case that sounds young to you, remember that some kids will have been presenting as their affirmed gender since as young as 4 or 6, never deviating or doubting their identities.

 

45 minutes ago, Birdie said:

That's just my opinion.

 

At the end of the day I believe it is the opinions of the children, their parents, and their health-care professionals that should count, not the opinions of the general public. There's no harm in having an opinion but I sincerely hope you would not try to limit access to care for trans kids. And if you did, I would hope it would only be after extensive research.

 

A great book if you'd like to better understand how decisions are made around this subject is Trans Kids: Being Gendered in the 21st Century by Tey Meadow. To prepare for her book Meadow conducted interviews with trans kids, their families, their doctors, and their advocacy groups for six years. She has since gone on to testify against bans on gender-affirming care for kids in courts around the US.

 

PS, my question was not about whether folks agree with gender-affirming care on principle. It was about whether or not the trans community should distance ourselves from it for the sake of respectability, given that the Republicans are seeking to paint anyone in favour of it as child abusers.

 

I fear this has gone wayyyy off topic...

[Betty K]

Just now, Betty K said:

I have literally never heard of a case in which parents or doctors forced a child to transition against their will.

 

Sorry @Birdie, I should have said I have never heard of a situation in which a cisgender child was forced to transition against their will. I have never heard of parents or doctors trying to convince a child that they were trans against their will. That is simply not what gender-affirming care is about.

[Ivy]

11 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

As for the family structure issue - I've avoided continuing that one, as it is a separate topic..

It is interesting, and I have no problem with it.  We should be able to live how we want as long as it's consensual, and doesn't hurt anyone else.

I'd love to be able to curl up in a "nest" with people close to me.

[Ila]

Hi everyone! Sorry to be responding to older posts so late: I just joined the group. It might take me a while to catch up with the whole topic.
 

@awkward-yet-sweet, thank you for posting. You and I probably have very different political views, but I feel like often we mainly hear from people who have the same views we do, so we don't know enough about other folks to connect and work together despite our differences. I imagine it must be pretty uncomfortable to share your political stance in a place like this where you're likely to be a minority, so I really appreciate that you did.

 

About blending in rather than making yourself visible as a trans person, I guess I feel like visibility is important because not having visibility means that people won't have the kind of experience Jen describes of "Oh, this person's trans? Well, I know them and they're not bad."

 

I don't think this means that all trans people have a moral obligation to be visible, though. For some folks (if they are able to pass) passing is important for safety or being able to function. Where I live, trans people are largely respected and supported, but I know that's not at all true in a lot of places. I feel like trans people in those places can make a bigger difference by being visible, but it also requires a lot more from them, and I support anyone who feels like staying under the radar is important for their well-being.

[Betty K]

9 hours ago, Ila said:

I don't think this means that all trans people have a moral obligation to be visible, though.

Hi @Ila, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. I have certainly never read a comment on TP to that effect. But I have read a few that seemed to be suggesting the opposite (ie, that certain trans folk should try to be less visible).

 

Oh, and welcome to TransPulse.

[VickySGV]

1 hour ago, Betty K said:

But I have read a few that seemed to be suggesting the opposite (ie, that certain trans folk should try to be less visible).

 

As one who is quite out and who takes part in Trans entertainment media on a regular basis these days, I am going to say that there are times when I want to duct tape the mouths of some "activists" that I get around because they are not anywhere close to being suitable ambassadors for Trans people even though they are Trans /NB to the max. I have not heard any of them on here (recently) but that kind does exist.  If I know them in person, I will try and rein them in and still let them know there are my siblings, so yes, we do have some folks who NEVER should be grabbing the headlines by seeing out the news reporter.

[Betty K]

18 minutes ago, VickySGV said:

so yes, we do have some folks who NEVER should be grabbing the headlines by seeing out the news reporter.

I agree Vicky, but that’s not what the bulk of this discussion has been about. The focus here has been on certain trans folks’ physical appearance. If the focus had been on certain trans folks’ problematic views then I could have agreed.

[Betty K]

Also @VickySGV, if certain more conservative trans folk are not happy with how other more radical trans folk are representing them, the answer is for conservative trans folk to be more visible, not for them to complain about radical trans folk being too visible. Decisions are made by those who show up, after all.

 

In your case, since you are showing up, you are in a position both to demonstrate what positive representation looks like and to reign in whatever you see as negative representation. 
 

29 minutes ago, VickySGV said:

and still let them know there are my siblings

 

I love this. Thank you for taking that approach.

[VickySGV]

41 minutes ago, Betty K said:

if certain more conservative trans folk are not happy with how other more radical trans folk are representing them, the answer is for conservative trans folk to be more visible, not for them to complain about radical trans folk being too visible. Decisions are made by those who show up, after all.

I am fully in agreement on that principal

[Betty K]

Just now, VickySGV said:

We are not in disagreement on that principal

That’s good to know. Thanks Vicky

[Ila]

On 2/29/2024 at 5:37 PM, Conrad said:

The idea is essentially just interviews, a library of videos of people from the LGBTQIA+ community as they tell their life stories.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Conrad. I think this would magnificent, and I haven't seen it yet--but hopefully versions of it exist somewhere that we'll stumble on!

 

I've tried to do something like this with my gender identity interview podcast, but there's definitely more of a focus on gender issues in it rather than people just talking about their lives, so even apart from being audio instead of video, it's not quite what you're describing. It does delve into the experience of a variety of people with a variety of genders, though. I love those kinds of conversations.

I wonder about a project like this that was organized to work kinds of like NPR's StoryCorps, where a person has someone close to them do the interviewing? The video could be just using a person's smartphone, and what it lacked in production values it might make up for in personal connection. Maybe someone like you could organize and launch a project like that?

 

And I think that speaks to @awkward-yet-sweet's question about non-aggressive activism. Simply sharing our stories and our humanity advances understanding of trans lives without anyone having to fight anyone. It's not as personal as a neighbor you've grown to respect, but it's something.

[Birdie]

6 hours ago, Betty K said:

if certain more conservative trans folk are not happy with how other more radical trans folk are representing them, the answer is for conservative trans folk to be more visible, not for them to complain about radical trans folk being too visible. Decisions are made by those who show up, after all.

I would be considered a 'conservative', not in all my values, but many business and political ones. 

Personally I don't care how anyone presents themselves. I know several individuals here in Texas that are also 'somewhere on the rainbow', and I have the upmost admiration for them when they present themselves to a hostile Texas environment. 

 

This isn't California, and things can get ugly fast. 

 

Even in my case where 'gossip' has passed around enough in the apartment complex I reside in I receive backlash for looking like a woman, and it's well known that I'm intersex. 

 

'Perceived abnormalities' in Texas are viewed harshly, yet some are brave enough to carry the flag. I admire them greatly, yet I worry about their safety. 

 

I have been ridiculed, groped, and bullied simply for being intersex by people that say they are adherents to religion. Rules 'made up a they go along' at the day-centre I attend to deal with my 'condition'. It's strange that a medical facility sees my being intersex as an infliction. 

 

I watch the openly gay drag queen at the facility being harshly controlled to fit their standards as well (they had to buy a whole new wardrobe in order to attend). 

 

Yet many still wave the flag proudly in the face of danger. I admire them, but that's not me. 

I 'need' to present as myself (a woman), but making as few waves as possible. I do push the envelope, but not to the point of harsh backlash like some do. 

 

I can just 'blend in' around strangers, and I always do. Those that know me are my biggest problem, but also not so much as a threat.

It's more of an inconvenience at the day-centre. 

We have pushed on both sides, and we know the common grounds. They sometimes come up with new rules, and I find a way to still be me. 

 

[Betty K]

5 hours ago, Birdie said:

I would be considered a 'conservative', not in all my values, but many business and political ones. 

Personally I don't care how anyone presents themselves. I know several individuals here in Texas that are also 'somewhere on the rainbow', and I have the upmost admiration for them when they present themselves to a hostile Texas environment. 

 

That sounds like a healthy attitude to have, Birdie.

 

I hope you realise I was not suggesting that all conservative trans folk are unhappy with how they're being represented.

 

I'm very sad to hear about the treatment you receive; obviously it is completely unjust.

 

[Ivy]

3 hours ago, Betty K said:

obviously it is completely unjust.

This.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

On 3/7/2024 at 3:22 AM, Betty K said:

The far more important point, and the point I’m hoping you’ll concede, is that visibility can be positive. I’ve said this so many times but I feel it bears repeating: I receive a lot of love from strangers.

 

And if you’ll recall, this entire conversation started when you told me that I should try to be less visible.

 

I’m quite amazed by one aspect of your belief system, and that is the way you seem to continually deflect responsibility from one of the institutions most likely to harm us: the Republican Party.

 

....but don’t you think that NOT voting for a party that dehumanises us might help? The problem is not that you advise trans folks not to draw attention to ourselves, but that you pay only the merest lip service to the idea of fighting the people and institutions devoted to oppressing us. That is why I used the term “victim blaming”, because you seem far more critical of the victims than the abusers.
 

If you started high school 20 years ago then you started right near the beginning of what I would characterise as the golden age for trans folk, at least in the Anglo west. 

 

In short, if you are in any way suggesting that we — western culture as a whole — would be better off going back to the way things were in those days, I couldn’t disagree more.

 

Lastly, I think you’ve avoided my question about gender-affirming care for trans kids. From where I’m standing it seems the Republicans are leading a witch-hunt against anyone who supports such medical practices. Would you therefore feel safer if trans people did not show our support? Would you advise us to distance ourselves from the issue?

Oh, and I still don’t get the connection between some trans folk matching up with a “socially negative image” and your assault. It sounds to me like what you’re saying is that you actually matched, at least slightly, with that negative image and that is why you were assaulted. But isn’t that either (a) the assailant’s fault for being a bigot or (b) (if we’re victim blaming) your fault for resembling that negative stereotype? I still don’t understand how it’s some kid in Seattle’s fault for having blue hair. If that kid wants to risk assault for resembling that supposedly negative stereotype, isn’t that entirely within their rights?

 

I'll concede that visibility CAN be positive.  But it will depend on the form that visibility takes.  Folks with blue hair carrying signs, blocking traffic, and shouting at passers-by...that is not the kind of visibility that I personally want to be seeing.  Folks dressing in drag at the public library?  Not the kind of visibility that will be viewed positively.  And if you remember (way back when, as this thread is getting long), I spoke about activities in public generally, rather than you specifically as an individual. 

 

Why do I not support the Democrats?  Because I don't like 75% of what they stand for.  I don't care for the usual Republican position on LGBTQ+ issues either.  I find their party slightly less objectionable overall.  If there's any place I want to "break the binary" it is in politics.  Actually, I consider myself a "true classical liberal."  As in, more freedom is better, less government is better.  Like from the 18th century. My politics come down to just one phrase: "Leave me alone!"  We don't have a party that consistently acts according to that.  The people and institutions who support LGBTQ+ people oppress people like me in other ways.  The people and institutions who (somewhat) support people like me, they're the ones who often oppress LGBTQ+ people.  I get stepped on either way...and if you've read what I wrote, you'll see that's been my perspective all along.  If you want to talk with somebody who actually likes Trump....that would be a friend of mine, not me. 

 

I believe I've addressed my views on gender-affirming care.  I believe more freedom and less government is better.  I believe in parental choice, and the absolute supremacy of the family.  Unfortunately, we don't have a party that holds a consistently pro-freedom view.  The Democrats are fine with gender-affirming care, but oppose parental choice in other areas.  The Republicans sometimes support parental choice when it comes to school curriculum and health decisions, but violate their own principles when it comes to gender-affirming care.  I don't hear anybody calling that out.  Democrats can't do that and be credible, since they've got the same issue of inconsistency, and there's precious few LGBTQ+ folks who aren't openly supporting the Democrat party.  So who's left?  And how do you suggest folks show their support?

 

As for the issues that lead to my assault, my assumption is that I matched (somewhat, and unintentionally) the negative social image.  At least just enough to identify me.  And actually, there's three sources of fault.  A - the bigot....because he committed the crime.  B - me, for being careless and unwise.  C - folks who engage in noticeable and disruptive public behavior that unsettles society and creates the negative image.  Yes, B and C are indirect sources of fault, and addressing them is about prevention while addressing A happens after-the-fact.  We reduce the risk of crime by isolating/punishing A, fixing B, and somehow diminishing and/or changing C. 

 

 

On 3/8/2024 at 6:34 AM, Ila said:

 

@awkward-yet-sweet, thank you for posting. You and I probably have very different political views, but I feel like often we mainly hear from people who have the same views we do, so we don't know enough about other folks to connect and work together despite our differences. I imagine it must be pretty uncomfortable to share your political stance in a place like this where you're likely to be a minority, so I really appreciate that you did.

 

Yes, it definitely gets uncomfortable.  I often feel like engaging with other LGBTQ+ folks is like being in a Democrat echo chamber.  And the thing is, I'm not a Republican voter or a Trump supporter...I'm for limited government in a way that neither party represents.  Going back a few years, I recall an incident where a Trump-supporting trans girl got assaulted by other LGBTQ+ folks due to her political views.  It seems to be that being part of the "club" carries with it certain political expectations, and a ton of pressure to conform. 

 

16 hours ago, Betty K said:

Also @VickySGV, if certain more conservative trans folk are not happy with how other more radical trans folk are representing them, the answer is for conservative trans folk to be more visible, not for them to complain about radical trans folk being too visible. Decisions are made by those who show up, after all.

 

One interesting thing I've noticed is that conservative people....act conservatively.  They're not the sort to attend a protest.  And when we do have a protest that is supposedly conservative...the conservative people stay home.  We end up with the loonies and racists showing up, and folks giving the "Adolf was this tall" gesture.  I feel like at any event (Left, Right, or otherwise), its the fringe folks who are most represented because they're the ones with the most energy.  And apparently the most time on their hands.  I think it creates a false image, and I feel the exact same way about the loud blue-haired protesters that I do about the folks who protest in favor of the 2nd Amendment by carrying rifles in public. 

[Ashley0616]

It would be nice to have less government power over everything. That I can definitely agree with @awkward-yet-sweet. As it has been previously stated it should be by the people and for the people. Then again it comes down to which people? We can't seem to agree with much of anything. This country is far from united at all. The only part that is united is that we will all agree to disagree. This country has been divided ever since it was created. We only care about who is right and who is wrong and can't view the other people's perceptions and go back to the mentality of it's my way or the highway. There will always be hate no matter what happens. It even exists in each political party. My point is that there will never be a time that we ever become united. Even the trans community in itself is divided. We can pretend that it doesn't exist all day long but that won't make anything any better. Back to the subject at hand though. Not all activists protest by blocking roads. There can be peaceful protests and there can be people who don't agree with peace at all. I believe that a good bit should stand up and let the voices be heard. If you rely on the few that are speaking up we will be grouped together and your viewpoints won't be heard. I'm not saying everyone should but the majority should because the trans community is by far a minority even more than the black community when they were trying to have their voices heard. We should put away our petty differences and stand up and be heard. Just my two cents. 

[Adrianna Danielle]

My good friend Mandy finding something,picture of us with me as my trueself Adrianna for the first time.To this day,she does not miss the unhappy me at all

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, Ashley0616 said:

Not all activists protest by blocking roads.

True.  I've been involved in some protests (over women's issues in this case) and we basically held signs on the side of the street - no blocked traffic.  We got flipped off and preached at, but no violence or burned out stores were involved.

 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

2 hours ago, Ivy said:

We got flipped off and preached at, but no violence or burned out stores were involved.

 

If protests aren't impeding traffic or causing issues, I'm fine with that. And I don't understand why people have to be rude in that case. If they're not bothering, why bother them? Makes no sense to me when people start to get rude or vicious.

 

And of what I wrote before doesn't make a lot of sense, it's because I'm hungover as heck. It has been a weekend...