Calling you transphobic is ridiculous.

You should recognise though that the whole silly name calling thingy is an approach to try to 'win the war' as you put it. You're very idea that beliefs matter (which of course they do) would have been denied in the bad old days with nonsense about 'secret veils'.

Big progress if we can actually discuss the various tactical approaches based on their merit. I wont do it here because I'm in the PC camp and "Posting transphobic things" as you put it, is a big problem. A more abstract discussion on it all would be excellent imo (and many years overdue becaue the enforced silly name calling thingy denied reasonable discussion) but it aint easy - and we struggle enough with the easy :;

I hear the word Transphobic being tossed around a bunnch

If you believe biological men should not compete against woman some will call you Transphobic
If you believe that kids under the age of 18 should not receive puberty blockers you are transphobic to some
If you think a biological male should not be in a woman's locker room your transphobic to some

I think most people do not care about Trans gender but many folks are confused by it and may be uncomfortable around a trans gender person. That could have been said about gay folks 20 years ago and now most folks on the right do not care

yes, believing transphobic things is transphobic
denying trans kids access to puberty blockers is transphobic, like how is that even a question?

Believing that biological men should not compete against women can be both transphobic and a completely reasonable and appropriate position to hold.

Well said!

Transphobic generally implies malicious intent, as does homophobic and xenophobic.

No, they don't. Malicious intent isn't required at all, that is a very restrictive view of those things

It doesn't always have to be malicious but the intent is key.

+1

My Christian beliefs are often misunderstood and misrepresented. But in most cases not with ill intent, but usually out of plain ignorance.

Is it your opinion that it would be kewl for me to call those who misrepresent and/or misunderstand my Christian beliefs as Christianphobes?

I honestly don't think it matters in this context.

Either Cuepee's wrong on the substance of what he's argued for in this thread or he isn't. And whether or not Cuepee can be persuaded (or persuade me/others) the matters at hand are important current social questions that people disagree over.

I'm far more interested in discussing how counter-intuitive I find it to make statements like "he competed as a cis male" about Laurel Hubbard.

The analogy I'm going to keep putting forward in the hopes of seeing addressed is that this sounds to me like saying "When Elton John was straight". That's a strange thing to say. I would think most people would hold to the idea that when Elton John got married he hadn't come out yet, or that he was conflicted over his feelings about being gay and tried to suppress it, but nonetheless he was always gay. That there isn't a time when Elton John was heterosexual.

That's directly analogous to a trans person who transitions. I don't think that a trans woman was ever a cis male. I think they were always a trans woman. To then refer to "when he was a cis male" is incoherent to me.

As fun as it it to discuss someone's posting trends, or whether they're malicious, that's an actually substantive issue that I think people should grasp when they discuss these topics or decide what pronouns are the best descriptors for trans people.

People don't become something when they come out. They affirm what they always were.

As I said I'm not going to get into the substance but whether he is right or wrong is a different issue. (I'd also argue then it depends on what he means and that that depends on intentions)

We can totally disagree with someones approach to winning the war but that doesn't change whether or not we are on the same side. People can favour Chamberlain or Churchill but neither were remotely nazi

Strategy-wise it would probably be best to discuss the substance of the matter.

It's not clear whether, in the perspective of your analogy, Cuepee is actually "on the same side" as me. He's clearly not on the same side as me in terms of the substantive disagreement over the issues in this thread, specifically right now how to refer to trans people. I honestly don't care right now if we're "on the same side" or if one, both, or neither of us is transphobic. I really do care about settling the issue of how trans people in the real world ought be treated.

Maybe interestingly, I soemtimes disagree. Less interestingly, I need to recharge my cuepee batteries before another attempt at a meeting of minds.

I do think PC is paramount when it comes to the language and any views I might have had on the correct language would defer to the relevent groups. They determine what is correct.

no, impact is key. When a company designs an automatic hand dryer, doesn't test it against Black skin because it has no Black employees, and it turns out to not work for Black people, that is racism in action, even though no one designing it was trying to be racist!
If that happens, we don't need a conversation about whether they 'meant' to be racist, we need them to fix their skin sensor so it works for everyone (and probably examine why their company has no Black people in the decision making process).

When we focus on intent, it turns the conversation into one about whether or not someone actually meant to hurt someone, what is in their head and their heart. We shift away from paying attention to how to address and mitigate the harm of their actions, which is what is important.

Agree with all that.

I agree with that as well. A very good reason to avoid calling people names which ~always results in excactly that pointless counterproductive conversation.

Racists are a huge problem but racism is a far bigger problem then just those racists.

Lets see a childs brain hasn't fully formed. Do we let children drink, vote, join the military before the age of 18?

we give puberty blockers to cis children who enter puberty 'too soon', they weren't developed for trans children. It isn't some wild, unheard of medical treatment for children.

It's medical care, not drug abuse or a job, so I'm not sure why you're making that comparison.

People tend to be against puberty blockers because 'what if the child turns out to not be trans?'
Lets say a kid says they are trans and want puberty blockers. Hopefully most people will understand that there is a higher than 50% chance that the child is actually trans, and if they do not get puberty blockers, they will go through the 'wrong' puberty.
Not allowing them to access medical care is transphobia - the slight chance that a cis child might incorrectly go through the 'wrong' puberty, is seen as a much more negative outcome, then the higher chance that a trans child will be forced to go through the 'wrong' puberty.
And in this case, the cis child isn't even going through the wrong puberty! They're just delaying puberty till a later date.

Sounds like Rocco is guessing at where Nacho got it from and that the risk is more in seeing third world prostitutes than trans people. Thanks for bringing up this totally irrelevant avenue.

Holy ****, washoe...might be time to take a break from this thread.

Meanwhile, the next chapter in the Laurel Hubbard story has been written:

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/s...pian-1.6126764

Congratulations to Quinn, who with Canada's win over the USA in the women's soccer match has become the first openly transgender person to receive an Olympic medal.

Their words are powerful:
People can reasonably disagree on certain types of trans people being allowed in certain types of events at the Olympics, and indeed even the IOC is set to revise its own guidelines from the last writing of guidelines based on the scientific literature in 2015. This is an iterative process, and that is ok. However, I think continuing to center the conversation about trans people and sports around the broad base - kids enjoying sports - and not that pinnacle is important in the long run. With the Olympics naturally the conversation will focus there momentarily, but let's quickly return to doing what we can to help our kids build a love for sport.

Well said, uke.

This is an area where trusting the judgement of professionals seems best since too many of those casting aspersions probably don't know enough about it.

I am also a "let folks do what ever they want" freedom lover, so if ends being a disaster then you can laugh a point fingers if that's your cup of tea.

Crossover also refers to men who do gay as well as straight scenes. August Ames didn't even refuse the scene because the man had done a trans scene, and she didn't express a personal preference not to perform with that man, she posted the following tweet:

So nothing to do with trans people anyway, making this even less relevant than previously.

If you're right that she was referring to Nacho Vidal then he tested positive long after her death and it doesn't even appear from what you've said that he contracted the virus in the adult film industry anyway. Actually, googling it, it's possible that Nacho doesn't even have HIV at all and it was a false positive due to another chronic condition.

The idea that starring in trans movies is like "Russian roulette" is something you can't possibly defend. It sounds like the type of thing you've read on one of those Reddit links you've posted before. Adult performers in the US are regularly tested and that applies to gay and trans performers. How many HIV outbreaks have their been among trans performers in the US? A lot of shady stuff goes on in that industry but people aren't dropping like flies because they've had sex with a trans person.

August's tweet was explicitly homophobic. It wasn't simply that she'd declined a scene, it was that she suggested that no other women should perform with someone because they'd been in a gay scene. I'm sure she was genuinely concerned for her health but you've done nothing to motivate that she actually held a rational position. What she said was on the lines of "I'm not working with a black guy, every chance they'll mug me".

What happened next was deeply tragic and a warning about the dangers of social media when the dogpiling occurs. August Ames had lived a troubled life wrought with abuse, suffered deeply from mental health issues, and the last thing she needed was everyone to tell her she's a bad person.

What angers me is the idea that her death is being used to promote the kind of bigotry that "starring in trans adult movies is a bit like russian roulette". Her tweet doesn't become post hoc justified because a performer you say was regularly seeing prostitutes contracted HIV. Her prejudice doesn't become rational due to the tragedy of her death.

August Ames is a very sad story but she isn't even relevant to this discussion and she certainly isn't a warning sign that it's dangerous to be with a bisexual.

I saw this as well and was a bit confused. Now if I get any Pronouns wrong please correct me.
Quinn identifies as Trans Gender Non Binary. So does that mean she is a Biological male or female? Non Binary means she doesn't identify as a man or a woman correct? I tried googling it and still a bit confused

As for Laurel Hubbard good to see her lose she shouldn't have been allowed to compete with woman in the first place.

Awesome to see Canada kick the USA's butt

Quinn was assigned female at birth and came out as non-binary last year. They neither identify as a man or woman.

Regarding Laurel Hubbard, while I genuinely wished her well, I will say there's a certain irony in how much has been made of how grossly unfair it is to expect cis women to compete with her given she's now bombed out in the first lifts. Almost as if she really wasn't all that much to worry about.