|
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
|
Wanting to have a non-inclusive space doesn't equate to wanting to be treated differently. That's a false premise; what having a non-inclusive space is about for minority groups is to create a place where they are not being affected, in any way, by the opinions or behaviors of privileged peoples-- as we are in essentially every other moment of our public and, often enough, even personal lives. Basically, it's about resisting the notion that privileged peoples have a fundamental right to treat us in any way at all, or to have an opinion on how we treat ourselves and each other.
Agreed on the basis, but I would ask you to review your methodology for conveying that. Ignoring the discrepancies between privileged and disadvantaged groups of people does nothing to further equality; it only creates an opportunity for the dominant class to further exploit minority groups while you aren't looking.
Yeah, I was born in America and I really don't want to be treated like an American. I've seen how Americans treat each other. No thanks.
Well, again, this presumes American dominance and is really problematic for people such as myself who are Indigenous and born on occupied land. I'm not American. America is an invader. Moreover, a lot of African and other migrant peoples don't consider themselves American because they were not brought here by choice, but by force-- even if it wasn't them personally, they're the children of slaves. "American" is a really unsuitable moniker, on the whole. I do get your point, but again, just consider what you're saying and to whom. I'll say it again: disregarding racial, cultural and sexual circumstances doesn't further equality. If you really want basic human freedoms for all people, you have to address the power structure that enacts oppressive means in order to achieve its ends. Insisting that all people should be equal is fine, but it doesn't actually attain that equality in its own right.
Nice edit. ;]
And Nazi Germany was OK because there were some high ranking Jews who were able to live in relative peace.
Agreed.
Yeah, I was happy to hear that the original assaulter actually has been brought to court-- although it's a small compensation given how little faith I have in American capital punishment, and it does little to help CeCe's cause, unfortunately.
This was actually a pleasant surprise for me. It's not often you hear about this kind of progress being made, so while, like you said, it's a small victory, it is something. Still-- it's far from justice.
Problem is, there is often no other choice, and the alternative is generally even more unnecessary suffering on the part of the victims of oppression. If you think about it, CeCe was only able to help the prison guards change their treatment of her because she was forced to be in prison; similarly, many of the avenues for persuading people to change (in a pacifistic, "accepted" manner that is) come at the cost of our own peoples' well-being and security, be it directly (for instance, by way of "compromising" with hostile and powerful people) or indirectly (like taking too long to reach that compromise and finding another dead sister in the streets). The reason I think there's such a vital push for forceful and even violent revolution among many people is because that is not an easy sacrifice to make, or to even consider making-- better (and, history has shown, often enough more effective) to fight to the death. For so many people, this really is all-out warfare, but the enemy isn't an organized army and that's what makes it hard, because they can't simply be identified by a uniform. Every cis person I see could be someone that's willing to hurt me or kill me for dressing and behaving and presenting the way I do-- or they might be an ally that's going to lend their support to me; that's not an easy dichotomy of relations to live with, on any level.
What that means is that you have Cherokee blood. That doesn't make you Cherokee as far as I'm concerned. Don't claim blood if you don't practice the heritage.
The LGBT community.
This isn't about privilege or entitlement. It's about being inclusive. You can have your own community groups. You can have clubs and the like. But when you actively segregate yourself from mainstream society you don't do anyone any favours. You're contributing to and breeding the intolerance you purport to fight against. That's simply how it works, whether you think it's right or wrong. Assimilation works.
you are kidding me, right?
Lucky you.
Yes. This is what most Americans associate the term with, too, in my experience.
Well, sure, it's all a bit contextual. But the land known as "America" is actually a number of different continents and by that standard Canadians and Mexicans and Brazilians are all "American" as well-- which is a lot more confusing and inefficient, as things stand, than connoting the term "American" with the specific culture and nation of peoples which have essentially appropriated it to fit their identity, as it were. Because you don't see Obama trying to garner the appreciation of Argentinians when he struggles to capture the "American" vote, and you don't see nearly anyone refer to themselves as "United States of American."
These differences being? /awaiting inevitable biological determinism politics
I don't disagree with gender existing. I also don't agree with prisons existing. I also never said she should be incarcerated in a women's prison; I only pointed out that putting her in a men's prison exposes her to a heightened risk factor. Which is to say, yes, there should be gender-placed protections in place to ensure people are as safe as possible, but in order for that to actually be comprehensive, those protections would have to be malleable to each individual's needs to an extent that basing them on any rigid notion of gender would render them ineffective at best. In this case, as a trans woman, CeCe is endangered in men's prison and women's prison-- because she is trans, she is likely to be abused in either scenario and what she really needs is, firstly, not to be incarcerated at all, and barring that, to be permitted house arrest so she can serve her time in a place where she is not in immediate danger. I would face a similar situation as a gender neutral person-- I'm neither man nor woman, so where would I be placed?
Oh, look, a privileged cis person claiming that it's not about privilege and they totally knows what's best for us. I've never seen that before and it definitely isn't an extremely entitled perspective.
Men can't pregnant, for one.
I didn't put words in your mouth. That was a separate sentence.
Oh look, a minority shutting down civil discourse because I'm a straight white male. I never seen that before and it certainly doesn't make you look like a shut off asshole.
Well I typed up a proper response to this detailing all of its bullshit and the way you've basically justified all kinds of transphobic policies and social behaviors without even trying because you're JUST THAT MUCH of a giant cissexist asshole, but I lost it due to site malfunctions, so I went and found a picture that sums up this whole post rather well instead:
That's not true. I've been exceedingly patient with most of the cissexist (and otherwise privileged) nonsense that has been tossed around here. If you want me to slog through and post examples of every purposefully objective, calm post I've made throughout this thread, I'll do that. I do have a limit, though, and I'm not going to claim I've been entirely calm and objective because I haven't-- and neither has anyone else. Nor would I expect that from anyone.
I may engage in ad hominem for the fun of it, but I don't rely on it. When I call people out for being white and privileged that's entirely relevant to the perspective their post (often, argument) is conforming to; it's not a personal insult, it's a social fact. Furthermore, I would counter that objectivity isn't the only, or often most appropriate, way to address every issue. I've shared subjective opinions in this thread that are tailored my own personal experiences and feelings because, frankly, they carry a lot more weight with regards to trans needs and minority rights than some cisgender white person's "objective" speculations as to how we should engage change. Presumption is just as bad a way to approach the challenges of social disorder as ad hominem.
I agree, except where gender identity comprises the main security fault, but that's mostly semantic. With regards to CeCe in particular, I maintain that she should be placed under house arrest as that is the safest option for her, she does not pose a threat to anyone else and, in the first place, she's being wrongfully incarcerated to begin with. There's no reason for her to go to prison at all.
This is where objectivity becomes a hindrance rather than a benefit. You have the advantageous position of being able to state that without making the connection as to how utterly that "realistic approach" fails so many people because it doesn't affect you. I don't have that benefit and neither do most trans people-- we can't stand for the status quo and just accept that's the reality of the situation. When it comes to public policies that are damaging our communities, we have to struggle against them-- and guess what. That struggle is always going to come from the subjective space of having experienced that damage firsthand. So before you lecture a trans person on how they go about presenting their discourse, really consider that. You're coming from the subjective place of being privileged enough to maintain an objective distance from the issues at hand.
Are you kidding me? She chose to be a woman, so she deserves to be treated as such. She's transgender, she changed her sex. It's a much better idea to put her in the women's prison (although I don't agree with the prison part at all) then in the men's prison, where she would undoubtedly get raped by some inmates, and assaulted by others for being a transgender individual.
