TIL lemmy has a traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns community : lgbtq

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

I'd like to respond to some of the things discussed in this thread, but I don't want to directly reply to anyone. I just want to share my perspective, not argue.

Transgender is currently accepted as an umbrella term and includes a variety of identities. What these identities have in common is that they are not cisgender. Disagreements about which identities fall under the trans umbrella are really about the specificity of the label itself. Some people seem to want the umbrella to be split into two distinctly different labels, with one being specifically for trans people who seek medical transition.

It all comes down to the definition of transgender as an umbrella term. Definitions of terms change, and it's not unreasonable to think that transgender may change meaning again in the near future. But right now, "not cisgender" is what defines transgender identities, and that includes non-binary people and trans people that don't seek medical transition.

As someone medically transitioning by HRT and seeking SRS, my identity is not diminished in any way by acknowledging the validity of other identities. My recent meme explicitly explains my desire for SRS, and there was no push-back. That's because I was explaining my own transition and not attempting to define other people.

Not all trans people seek medical transition, and that's valid. Not all trans people seeking medical transition want both HRT and SRS, and that's also valid. And what trans people want for themselves can change. It's important that non-cisgender people be accepted as transgender so they can accept themselves. Big questions about possible medical transition can be decided later.

Our enemies are the transphobes attacking our freedoms. Let's be kind to our fellow trans people.

❤️

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No it doesn't. Some instances have all sort of communities, "Lemmy" is not a homogeneous entity (see: list of defederations).

If you want to get a community removed from your feed, you can:

contact the hosting instance
ask your instance to defederate from the one hosting the community
use an app to filter the community/instance on your own

Conversely, if you want a community added to your feed, you can:

contact your instance or a federated one to create it
ask your instance to federate with the one hosting the community
use an app to either join multiple instance accounts into a single feed, or easily jump from instance to instance

Lemmy is what we make it to be.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

This could be easily interpreted as hostile or negative, I'm removing it. If you wish to be helpful to others, I'd suggest that you never start a reply with "No it doesn't" when someone is sharing something they could be happy about.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Unfortunately that one has only one inactive mod, which makes it prone to transphobic raids. You could make an account on lemmy.ml (or hexbear itself, its one of the only instances with pronouns as a feature built in and has been very supportive of trans people and defeding transphobic instances) and access hexbear's /c/traa which is somewhere around 10x more active and has 23 mods on it. Generally we're able to remove transphobic content within 5-10 minutes of a report so that other people don't have to see it.

https://hexbear.net/c/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

We defederated from hexbear, please don't post links to hexbear on our instance. If you're a beehaw user and believe hexbear is worth reconsidering, feel free to start a conversation in support explaining why you think they should be refederated with.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Too bad Hexbear is still a parody of itself:

Built-in pronouns feature
"Current time: [...] Moscow Standard Time"
"A leftist social platform"
No fascists
Non-vegan food is NSFW "(CW: Food)"
Only allows content legal in US and UK

They've updated the CoC with some sensible points, but still have a way to go.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

doesnt matter, im specifically referring to a trans community on hexbear, you can make an account on lemmy.ml to access traa. if you look at removals the only thing we've removed is transphobia. hexbear has explicitly defed from dozens of instances because they are harbingers of transphobia and harass transgender people. there is a reason why almost half of the site is populated by trans users.

and how is 'no fascists' a bad rule?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Hexbear was defeded by many instances, both because of the tankie vibe, and because the nice people of Hexbear went on to be not-nice on other instances. Reading their CoC now, they seem to have added a rule about the latter. Still...

The first contradiction stems from the set of terms {"Moscow", "no fascists", "LGBT"}, it conjures images like:

Putin's rule, and procreation camps to increase the availability of cannon fodder.
Videos of gay couples holding hands in the center of Moscow, getting insulted and spit on by random passerbys.

Other contradictions are:

US and UK putting sanctions on Russia, and the other way around, making "legal in" (US ∩ UK ∩ Moscow) ≈ ∅.
{"Leftist", "no fascists", "vegan"} vs. China/USSR/Putin, and in particular dog farms or the "if it moves, then we eat it" saying.

No rule alone is exactly wrong; the combination of them is a WTF.

Keep in mind that when accessing that community, you're beholden to both your own and the remote instance's rules. Sometimes, those are not compatible.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

youre very in your own head about these ideas. perhaps you have been told these things and have not investigated yourself. you are not immune to propaganda.

The first contradiction stems from the set of terms {“Moscow”, “no fascists”, “LGBT”}, it conjures images like:

the moscow time thing is a joke, theres a lot of people that genuinely think hexbear is on putins payroll. for the record, historically the trans community has even been decried as soviet and russian infiltrators, as far back as the 50s and 60s

Videos of gay couples holding hands in the center of Moscow, getting insulted and spit on by random passerbys.

i have gone into my experience dealing with russia on hexbear in the past. im the head mod of c/traa on hexbear. i have personally engaged in (now) highly illegal acts in russia, largely to do with helping trans refugees escape to czechia and finland, draft dodging, and getting HRT to people along the border with china. you might be surprised to hear this, but the average young russian communist is very trans supportive and very helpful to the trans community at large in russia. so many have helped get trans people out of volatile areas like chechnya and donbas.

“if it moves, then we eat it” saying.

can you explain this

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

I'm afraid the rhetoric pattern of "neg, victimhoood, authority" is not gonna work here.

Maybe that is closer to what Russian citizens/refugees are used to, or even need, and maybe that makes Hexbear useful... but it's far from the clearer dialectic that those already fed up with rhetoric would willingly engage with.

That means, any "investigation" is going to be limited to a cursory glance, checking the rules, and a few interactions like this one... after which, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... I like tangerine duck.(¹)

The saying is about China, which is friends with Russia right now, and is notoriously "non-vegan".

Overall, if what you're saying is that Hexbear is actually anti-Putin, and pro-idealized communism... cool, but it still doesn't look like it, whether that be by design or not.

CW: Food

[¹: This is actually true. I'm a "pragmatic" vegan in that I will pick vegan when given a choice, but also eat anything non-toxic, ranging from horse steak tartare, to bull testicles, century eggs, or tangerine duck.]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Truscum rhetoric is also bigotry.

This is always a red flag, the label "truscum" has just become a means to shut down uncomfortable conversations about what actually falls under the trans umbrella, it's used to demonize any trans person who defends the medical legitimacy of their condition and insists that it's not a social condition.

It's TERF propaganda to ostracize trans people from their own communities by weaponizing people looking to legitimize their own special interest that's not actually related to being trans.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Gonna have to disagree here. The social aspect of it all is just as important of the medical aspect. While there are trans issues that are mostly medical in nature, there are equally trans issues that are more social in nature.

I'm not sure what contexts you've seen truscum being used in, but from what I know it's a term used for people who insist on a medical diagnosis in order to be trans. The problem with this, imo, is twofold. There's a long history of medical gatekeeping that enforced cisheteronormativity in order to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, leaving out all other forms of self-identity (among a whole host of philosophical issues). And the second is just the lack of understanding and research of the broader medical community. Treatment guidelines are all over the place, often misguided, and usually inadequate to achieve the goals of the patient.

Truscum rhetoric often reinforces cisheteronormativity which is mostly antithetical to what being trans is about in the first place. That's not to say that the trans community doesn't struggle with medical diagnoses or that that's not important, but to use a diagnosis as the benchmark of what being trans is, is usually needlessly exclusionary.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think the problem comes when it's framed as "you can only be trans if you have a diagnosis" as opposed to "you're trans whether you have a diagnosis or any kind of medical experience with it or not." One can say "it took a doctor diagnosing me with dysphoria before I could accept I was trans, but I understand that this is just my experience, and I know others have their own experience" and that's totally fine.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, there's room for nuance regarding diagnosis and people shouldn't be gatekept or diagnosed online by others when they're exploring and trying to figure things out, but often the term "truscum" is used to punish and silence trans people who don't agree that anything and everything fits within gender identity simply because someone might want it to in order to feel validated.

It should be ok to tell people, for example, that dysphoria is central to the trans condition, and to point out that all of trans people's modern medical rights are based on that notion. But saying that will get you banned from those spaces without much discussion, despite it being a critically important truth that makes medical transition possible. That is kind of crazy to me.

If you pushback too hard on certain ideas that are questionable or downright damaging to trans people and their rights but are "widely accepted" in the space, it results in being "truscum".

It should be ok to discuss and clarify these topics without being labeled as some kind of a heretic. Truscum should not be the "I get to call you a bigot to shut you up" card.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It should be ok to tell people, for example, that dysphoria is central to the trans condition

I don't agree. It's ok to say "dysphoria is central to my trans experience, though I understand this isn't universal." That doesn't gatekeep anyone. In fact it's the opposite. But it's not ok to tell others that dysphoria or medical treatment is required to be trans.

Sure, in many locations, having a diagnosis is required before doctors will allow you to even begin HRT or consider having surgeries if you want them. But that's just a symptom of a broken medical system that enforces cisheteronormativity, and prevents self-ID and informed consent. It's not what actually defines what being trans is all about. It's just a hoop people are forced to jump through.

There's a difference between having honest and good-faith discussions about the role dysphoria, surgery and HRT play in the overall trans experience, and making broad definitive statements. That's what actually erases others' experiences.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Gender dysphoria is central to all trans experience though, even if it is experienced differently by different people, even if they don't get an official diagnosis.

If a person hasn't experienced dysphoria in any form, feels no discomfort with their bodily sex characteristics, that's simply being cis. It doesn't matter how they like to dress, what terms they use or invent, what their interests are or how they speak. All of that has nothing to do with gender identity, because gender identity is about how you relate to the sex characteristics of your body, nothing else.

The idea that a person can be socialized into being trans is directly contradictory to the idea that a trans person is born trans and that their gender identity is an unchangeable biological reality of who they are (which causes dysphoria when mismatched with their body).

The two ideas can't both be true, for the same reason you can't say being gay or straight is a social creation but also an unchangeable reality of that individual. If being trans was a social condition it could be undone through socialization (aka conversion therapy), which is a really damaging belief. If we still believed being trans was a socialization issue like the 1950s no one would be able to get medical care.

This is about the time that people (typically) stop the conversation and try to get you banned by calling you truscum and transphobic.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The idea that a person can be socialized into being trans is directly contradictory to the idea that a trans person is born trans and that their gender identity is an unchangeable biological reality of who they are (which causes dysphoria when mismatched with their body).

You are collapsing too many ideas into one here.

There are people who through some combination of nature and nurture find themselves wanting to be treated in a way which aligns much closer to how one gender gets treated in a particular society. They may choose to transition to get this treatment despite having no dysphoria about themselves or their body. Being upset about how someone treats you is not necessarily dysphoria. Do not erase these individuals.

Arguing that dysphoria is central to the trans experience is a trans medicalist (truscum) viewpoint and exclusionary rhetoric isn't nice and therefore isn't allowed around here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

There are people who through some combination of nature and nurture find themselves wanting to be treated in a way which aligns much closer to how one gender gets treated in a particular society.

How people of different gender treat one another is completely cultural though. It's arbitrary. You could have a culture where genders treat one another completely the same yet trans people would still exist because of dysphoria. It's not about culture, it's about their relationship to their bodies. It's why a trans person would still be trans even if they were socially isolated and alone, they might not have a way to understand why they feel dysphoria and it may manifest differently, but they would still feel it because it's a biological reality of who they are.

No one is erasing anyone -- I'm saying that wanting to behave a certain way, or dress a certain way, sleep with a particular kind of person, or be treated socially a certain way is all perfectly fine but it's not ultimately related to being trans. Otherwise you could claim a crossdresser were trans or people who claimed they were "attack helicopters" would have to be accepted as trans because there would literally be no argument you could make against it. You are defining trans people out of their own experience to avoid simply acknowledging that some things are a result of being trans and some things are not.

It is okay if we accept that not everyone is trans. It doesn't make people's experience or desires less valid, whether they end up being trans or not, if anything it helps them live with a more clear sense of themselves. Same way people shouldn't feel "excluded" because they're straight instead of gay. But it would be harmful for a straight person to squish and stretch the definition of being gay so that it included them because "I like dressing flamboyantly, so that makes me gay even though I don't like people of the same sex. And if you disagree with me you're erasing me". We would all recognize it as nonsense and it would be offensive for that person to speak on behalf of gay people's lived experience, even undermining the basis of their established rights.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No one is erasing anyone

You're literally erasing me, lol. I'm agender and trans. I did not start transitioning because of gender dysphoria. I don't even experience gender dysphoria. If you don't think I have the right experience to identify as trans, that's on you my friend, but I'm not going to change my labels because you don't think that I exist. I'm sorry if you feel that my existence jeopardizes your existence or invalidates it in any way, because there are many compatible world views in which it does not.

Ultimately it doesn't matter either way - I only intervened here because you got reported for not being nice. So please, stop it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm literally in the process of losing my right to life saving medical care in my country because of that philosophy. Because people think being trans is just a made up social thing. What is your skin in the game that entitles you to not only to represent me but to force me into silence? To tell people that it's just made up after trans people have fought for decades and decades to get the most basic recognition and medical care? How is that nice?

And this is the core of the problem, I can't be silent on this because allowing people to perpetuate the belief that being trans is a made up social construct is actually effecting trans people in a real material way.

Do whatever you want with that. I won't be back either way.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

At no point am I arguing that it is a made up social construct. I'm just letting you know about my existence. If my existence threatens you so much that you must throw me into a box that is not you, then go ahead and do so. I'm not out here shouting at the world about how people like me exist, I'm merely replying to your attempt to erase me. There are compatible world views which don't erase me - which many other people have pointed out here.

I'm sorry that your country is taking away your right to life saving medical care. The same thing is happening in my country. I'd rather spend my time and energy on preserving access to medical care for everyone than fighting with folks online. Best of luck, I hope things improve for you. 💜

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

I'm literally in the process of losing my right to life saving medical care in my country because of that philosophy. Because people think being trans is just a made up social thing.

Are you sure it's because of that particular philosophy, and not of some people's philosophy stemming from some "sacred" book, or a desire to control the sexuality of others?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Otherwise you could claim a crossdresser were trans or people who claimed they were “attack helicopters” would have to be accepted as trans because there would literally be no argument you could make against it.

this just sounds like a skill issue on your part, i'm sorry--this is not an issue if you have a postmodernist understanding of gender, which most trans people (myself included) subscribe to.

at the end of the day when you drill down? there really is not a material difference between the "real" and "fake" genders--gender is entirely socially constructed, and the designations of "male" and "female" that most people fall into are as arbitrary as any xenogender (real or frivolously created by right-wingers). you only "lose" by entertaining frivolous designations if your understanding of gender is already so narrow that you can't conceptually accommodate anything beyond a handful of stock gender identities to begin with.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

this is not an issue if you have a postmodernist understanding of gender, which most trans people (myself included) subscribe to.

No, that's an impression people in your position create by silencing those who disagree. Which is exactly the issue.

The reason xenogenders and transgender genders are not the same is because one is based on our dimorphic sexual physicality, and the other is based on metaphysical invention. It's the whole reason that the attack helicopter meme has no actual power -- because humans are not and have never been "part helicopter" but we are part male and female.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

The reason xenogenders and transgender genders are not the same is because one is based on our dimorphic sexual physicality, and the other is based on metaphysical invention.

So you're not only transmedicalist, but somehow also a gender essentialist?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is gatekeeping via transmedicalist talking points.

Dysphoria is not central to the trans experience. It's central to some trans experiences.

Even if your belief that dysphoria has biological/medical routes were true, that still doesn't mean that it's the only way to be trans.

Whatever else it is, gender is also a social construct, and our relationships with social constructs shape who we are in very real ways.

And hell to take your gatekeeping ever further, even if you're right, and some trans folk can "stop being trans" as a result of their social environment or whatever, they're still trans until they're not.

This is about the time that people (typically) stop the conversation and try to get you banned by calling you truscum and transphobic.

Yep, for good reason

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Even if your belief that dysphoria has biological/medical routes were true, that still doesn’t mean that it’s the only way to be trans.

It does though. In the same way that being attracted to the same sex is not a social construct, you can't simultaneously claim that being trans or being gay is intrinsic to a person but also that it's a result of socialization. The whole discussion becomes incoherent if you try to claim both are true.

some trans folk can “stop being trans” as a result of their social environment or whatever

This is what evangelicals and terfs claim. But it's not true. It's why you cannot convert a trans person, or a gay person from what they are. It's why the medical community has acknowledged that the best treatment is affirming care. If you believe being trans is a social issue you're putting trans people into a position to lose their access to medical care.

It's not gatekeeping, it's acknowledging the very basic concept of what it means to even be trans and using that to clarify if a feeling or belief or whatever else is or isn't a part of that concept. It doesn't delegitimize any of those feelings or beliefs, but it does separate out unrelated ideas that create confusion and misinformation about the trans experience.

But yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about, people refuse to accept that they are making a contradiction that's harmful to trans people, and instead try to turn it back on the very people who are arguing for trans people's legitimacy and rights. Rather than try to follow their own logic to its conclusion they shut down the conversation and try to make sure no one can talk about it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

some trans folk can “stop being trans” as a result of their social environment or whatever

This is what evangelicals and terfs claim. But it’s not true. It’s why you cannot convert a trans person, or a gay person from what they are. It’s why the medical community has acknowledged that the best treatment is affirming care. If you believe being trans is a social issue you’re putting trans people into a position to lose their access to medical care.

You took this quote completely out of context and inverted the intended meaning to suit your argument. The statement Ada made was

And hell to take your gatekeeping ever further, even if you’re right, and some trans folk can “stop being trans” as a result of their social environment or whatever, they’re still trans until they’re not.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

It’s not gatekeeping

Yes, it is. You are saying that anyone without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria isn't trans. You do not get to make that kind of statement.

You are the one erasing others' experiences

You are the one arguing against trans people’s legitimacy

No one here is saying being trans isn't real. But *you are when you say that it's only valid if you have dysphoria.

You also have to think this through: if you believe that you can only really be trans if you have a medical diagnosis, then you have created vast swathes of gatekeepers for being trans: doctors, insurance companies, politicians, governments at every level. In our bigoted, cisheteronormative society, if we say you can only be trans with a diagnosis, and that society doesn't want trans people to exist, then they can just stop diagnosing people. Doctors can refuse, and decide instead that you're depressed, bipolar, BPD, etc. instead, and that anyone who thinks they're trans is just "mentally ill." Governments can pass laws preventing state run insurances (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc.) from paying for anything related to dysphoria. They can also pass laws saying private insurances either don't have to cover it, or that they can't. I know for a fact this is already happening because I live in Florida. I'm watching this scenario happen right in front of me. You're taking away the ability for a person to know their own mind and their own body, and their right and ability to understand their own identity, and handing that judgement over to people with a vested interest in denying it.

And I can see why you'd think this would be a path to walk: if we say "a medical diagnosis means we're objectively, scientifically trans, then the bigots can't deny it", but that's not how things work. That's just pandering to the oppressors. You will never appease them.

No one is saying that you can just call anyone trans you want, like crossdressers, drag queens, or "attack helicopters" (I honestly can't believe you even threw that one around). Only the bigots do that.

No one is saying your experience isn't valid. It's exactly the opposite. If you feel dysphoria is central to your experience, that's fine! You're just as trans as the next trans person, just as valid. But that's your experience. You don't get to generalize your experience and then decide that's the yardstick by which everyone else must be measured.

LGBTQ+