Welcome to /c/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns, an anti-capitalist meme community for transgender and gender diverse people.
Please follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct
Selfies are not permitted for the personal safety of users.
No personal identifying information may be posted or commented.
Stay on topic (trans/gender stuff).
Bring a trans friend!
Any image post that gets 200 upvotes with "banner" or "rule 6" in the title becomes the new banner.
Posts about dysphoria/trauma/transphobia should be NSFW tagged for community health purposes.
When made outside of NSFW tagged posts, comments about dysphoria/traumatic/transphobic material should be spoiler tagged.
Arguing in favor of transmedicalism is unacceptable. This is an inclusive and intersectional community.
While this is mostly a meme community, we allow most trans related posts as we grow the trans community on the fediverse.
If you need your neopronouns added to the list, please contact the site admins.
Remember to report rulebreaking posts, don't assume someone else has already done it!
Matrix Group Chat:
Suggested Matrix Client: Cinny
https://rentry.co/tracha (Includes rules and invite link)
๐ณ๏ธโโง๏ธ Transmasculine Pride Ring ๐ณ๏ธโโง๏ธ
โฌ ๏ธ Left ๐ณ๏ธโโง๏ธ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ Be Crime Do Gay Webring ๐ณ๏ธโโง๏ธ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ Right โก๏ธ
if you call everyone dude and a transfem person gets mad about it, don't get defensive. just say like "sorry, i won't do it again" and don't argue "actually it's gender neutral" or "i call everyone dude". even if you do, i guarantee she's heard that argument from someone who very much does not call people they see as women dude. i certainly have
same goes double for the word guy.
Devil's advocate is unpopular because it's rhetorically dishonest - people with repugnant views often use it to abstract themselves from criticism for holding repugnant views while arguing for them.
I think you should be honest with yourself (and me): you're arguing for this because you think it's a good argument, but you're (rightly) worried you'll get banned by being honest about your views.
If you already know why it's controversial enough to abstract yourself from the argument, then why are you arguing for it?
It's not hard. Your vernacular doesn't matter. You don't have to understand the why in order to address people in a way that makes them feel respected as a person.
Yes I know the opinion is controversial, that's why I'm unsure of on it, and hence want to start a discussion with knowledgeable and relevant people In order to either reject it or become less unsure on it. (and If you'll look in some of the other threads my original comment has started, I have gotten some genuinely good information and perspectives in response)
I take mild offense to the implication I am being dishonest on this issue. I understand that some people using devils advocate are doing so to push their views while distancing themselves from them in case the discussion "fails". I am not doing that. If you are unable to believe me on that, then I do not believe there is any more productive conversation for us to have. My views do not get any more "extreme" than that, and I wanted to make that clear by expressing that even this, a view that may be controversial, is something that I am debating with myself and not a strongly held belief.
because understanding that something is controversial is not the same as understanding if or why it is wrong. Communism is controversial, should we stop talking about that here?
I never said I would refuse to change how I address someone if they tell me how i do so makes them uncomfortable, I wanted to discuss whether the wholesale rejection of a new development in our language was good. Please see my other comment for a full description of my goals, As I outlined there, I could have approached the situation better, but I do dislike your reaction to my genuine attempt to clarify my goals and stance.
What I'm trying to communicate is that it's still your opinion. It's not an "Alternative take that i dont necessarily beleive in but has been bouncing around in my head a while." It's ok to be wrong about things, but you're trying to put your "alternative take" into the conversation without ever having to accept criticism for having it.
Sure, I'm being (mildly) offensive, and I don't really see much future for this is a productive conversation either.