Genuinely curious … what exactly is the problematic stance here?
Is it that they think the boxer was a biological male and therefore trans female? Or is it referring to then as a biological male (which seems justifiably politically incorrect to me but not heinous in trying to point out that the Olympic/bougousie can’t be that transphobic, could honestly be a language problem).
Or is it the statement that the bourgeoisie aren’t trans phobic?
“The transgender topic” is already weird as a statement (kinda like “the gay agenda”, it comes off as only considering it as a political statement?), and “clearly promoted by the bourgeoisie” implies it’s bad.
“As far as […] lgbt flags on government buildings”: it’s… not far at all? Again, weird statement.
“Biological male” is both wrong for the boxer (she’s cis) and generally used for transphobia (trans women on HRT aren’t biological males by any reasonable definition). It’s also generally conspiratorial.
Overall it’s not explicitly transphobic or bad to me, but it shows at minimum a very misinformed perspective.
Overall it’s not explicitly transphobic or bad to me, but it shows at minimum a very misinformed perspective.
Yea that was my impression too. AFAIU, they’re from Europe so there may be a language barrier too. Don’t know how true that is though of course.
Otherwise, tangentially, as far as all the anti-tankie sentiments that may have been prompted by this are concerned, I’ve only seen good culture from them on trans issues.
I personally don’t see that in the statement … at all actually. Maybe they believe that, I don’t know … but I’d need to seem more to believe that.
From the context of the conversation, it seems more like the inversion, where they doubt that transphobia is some kind of bourgeoisie conspiracy given that trans-rights are getting support from enough parts of mainstream society.
Which IMO, as I’ve said in other comments, is a rather superficial angle on the whole thing (from both sides of the posted conversation). There’s undoubtedly a lot of transphobic energy in mainstream society, with plenty of influential people being shitty people about it, but whether it is or isn’t some conspiracy or whatever doesn’t seem like a helpful way of looking at it.
I could of course be wrong and ignorant. It just seems to me like the malice v incompetence dynamic, where most people can be vile for pretty base reasons, without culture playing a big role but without it having to be some conspiracy or organised effort (as the person nutomic was responding to was claiming)
Genuinely curious … what exactly is the problematic stance here?
Is it that they think the boxer was a biological male and therefore trans female? Or is it referring to then as a biological male (which seems justifiably politically incorrect to me but not heinous in trying to point out that the Olympic/bougousie can’t be that transphobic, could honestly be a language problem).
Or is it the statement that the bourgeoisie aren’t trans phobic?
“The transgender topic” is already weird as a statement (kinda like “the gay agenda”, it comes off as only considering it as a political statement?), and “clearly promoted by the bourgeoisie” implies it’s bad.
“As far as […] lgbt flags on government buildings”: it’s… not far at all? Again, weird statement.
“Biological male” is both wrong for the boxer (she’s cis) and generally used for transphobia (trans women on HRT aren’t biological males by any reasonable definition). It’s also generally conspiratorial.
Overall it’s not explicitly transphobic or bad to me, but it shows at minimum a very misinformed perspective.
Yea that was my impression too. AFAIU, they’re from Europe so there may be a language barrier too. Don’t know how true that is though of course.
Otherwise, tangentially, as far as all the anti-tankie sentiments that may have been prompted by this are concerned, I’ve only seen good culture from them on trans issues.
EDIT: and thanks for the reply!
The idea that trans rights are some kind of bourgeoisie conspiracy.
I personally don’t see that in the statement … at all actually. Maybe they believe that, I don’t know … but I’d need to seem more to believe that.
From the context of the conversation, it seems more like the inversion, where they doubt that transphobia is some kind of bourgeoisie conspiracy given that trans-rights are getting support from enough parts of mainstream society.
Which IMO, as I’ve said in other comments, is a rather superficial angle on the whole thing (from both sides of the posted conversation). There’s undoubtedly a lot of transphobic energy in mainstream society, with plenty of influential people being shitty people about it, but whether it is or isn’t some conspiracy or whatever doesn’t seem like a helpful way of looking at it.
I could of course be wrong and ignorant. It just seems to me like the malice v incompetence dynamic, where most people can be vile for pretty base reasons, without culture playing a big role but without it having to be some conspiracy or organised effort (as the person nutomic was responding to was claiming)