I have no idea what you think “transgender” and “transsexual” mean, but I can almost guarantee it’s not what other people mean when they say those things.
When I say transsexual I refer to people with the medical condition transsexualism that’s been known and studied for over 100 years now.
When I say “transgender” I refer to those people who “identify as transgender”. It appears to be a political movement, and not one I agree with.
There’s a great effort by the transgender community and transvestites as a whole to appropriate transsexualism and deny transsexuals exist, as I mentioned in my previous post. Naturally my usage of the word transsexual will differ from theirs, because they are literally trying to deny transsexuals exist.
This is a good example of why people who identify as conservative shouldn’t be trying to moderate LGBTQ+ spaces, even if they identify somewhere in that spectrum themselves. Conservatism at its heart is fundamentally focused on determining how other people do not belong to your “in” group and do not deserve the same privileges and rights as you do. Put more famously, “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
You’re not quite doing it here with your really badly couched transmedicalist take and your skirting around actually saying what you mean, but we all know what you mean so I’m not sure why you’re being so coy about it.
Conservatism at its heart is fundamentally focused on determining how other people do not belong to your “in” group and do not deserve the same privileges and rights as you do.
Definitely not unique to conservativism. I think that’s just a facet of humanity. Modern day progressivism is infamous for shooting itself in the foot with purity tests.
You misunderstand. People do have a strong tendency to do that, yes. Conservativism is about that, it enshrines that. You can have leftism without infighting. You can have LGBTQ+ without radical exclusion. You cannot have conservativism without exclusion of outgroups.
That’s an excellent point, you’re totally right. I just did a “both sides”. There’s a massive difference between the two, and I shouldn’t have equated them.
I support protection for all kinds of people, both transsexual and transvestite. What I care about on this topic though is clarity and recognition of individuals, and being able to clearly talk about different demographics. That’s simply impossible to do if you try to use the same word to refer to entirely different kinds of people and different situations.
How can you speak about homosexuality, if you call straight people “gay” and “homosexual”? it’s impossible!
You accuse me of transmedicalism, but I’d argue against this accusation. “transmedicalism” is a word that’s used to describe people with a different view, relating to gender identity and gender dysphoria with gender identity disorder, and is unrelated to transsexuals and our issues/needs. many transmedicalists also deny transsexuals exist.
As long as there’s clarity in speech, and a recognition of my medical condition (transsexualism) without conflation or appropriation, then I’m happy. I don’t mind supporting others with different situations. but I won’t yield and forfeit my ability to speak about myself and my medical situation.
Fella, you described transgenderism as “pseudoscience” and a “harmful ideology”. You don’t get to go back and try to claim you’re actually totally fine with it and just want everyone to be clear what they mean… Especially not when you still haven’t actually said what you mean. You were very open about your in- and out-groups there.
This is what I find so baffling. You wear it on your sleeve, but the moment people actually address your big claimed grievance you back away and won’t own it. At least if you’re going to side with the bigots that want you dead, don’t be such a fucking coward about it.
I have no idea what you think “transgender” and “transsexual” mean, but I can almost guarantee it’s not what other people mean when they say those things.
When I say transsexual I refer to people with the medical condition transsexualism that’s been known and studied for over 100 years now.
When I say “transgender” I refer to those people who “identify as transgender”. It appears to be a political movement, and not one I agree with.
There’s a great effort by the transgender community and transvestites as a whole to appropriate transsexualism and deny transsexuals exist, as I mentioned in my previous post. Naturally my usage of the word transsexual will differ from theirs, because they are literally trying to deny transsexuals exist.
Yep, what I said then.
This is a good example of why people who identify as conservative shouldn’t be trying to moderate LGBTQ+ spaces, even if they identify somewhere in that spectrum themselves. Conservatism at its heart is fundamentally focused on determining how other people do not belong to your “in” group and do not deserve the same privileges and rights as you do. Put more famously, “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
You’re not quite doing it here with your really badly couched transmedicalist take and your skirting around actually saying what you mean, but we all know what you mean so I’m not sure why you’re being so coy about it.
Definitely not unique to conservativism. I think that’s just a facet of humanity. Modern day progressivism is infamous for shooting itself in the foot with purity tests.
You misunderstand. People do have a strong tendency to do that, yes. Conservativism is about that, it enshrines that. You can have leftism without infighting. You can have LGBTQ+ without radical exclusion. You cannot have conservativism without exclusion of outgroups.
That’s an excellent point, you’re totally right. I just did a “both sides”. There’s a massive difference between the two, and I shouldn’t have equated them.
I support protection for all kinds of people, both transsexual and transvestite. What I care about on this topic though is clarity and recognition of individuals, and being able to clearly talk about different demographics. That’s simply impossible to do if you try to use the same word to refer to entirely different kinds of people and different situations.
How can you speak about homosexuality, if you call straight people “gay” and “homosexual”? it’s impossible!
You accuse me of transmedicalism, but I’d argue against this accusation. “transmedicalism” is a word that’s used to describe people with a different view, relating to gender identity and gender dysphoria with gender identity disorder, and is unrelated to transsexuals and our issues/needs. many transmedicalists also deny transsexuals exist.
As long as there’s clarity in speech, and a recognition of my medical condition (transsexualism) without conflation or appropriation, then I’m happy. I don’t mind supporting others with different situations. but I won’t yield and forfeit my ability to speak about myself and my medical situation.
Fella, you described transgenderism as “pseudoscience” and a “harmful ideology”. You don’t get to go back and try to claim you’re actually totally fine with it and just want everyone to be clear what they mean… Especially not when you still haven’t actually said what you mean. You were very open about your in- and out-groups there.
This is what I find so baffling. You wear it on your sleeve, but the moment people actually address your big claimed grievance you back away and won’t own it. At least if you’re going to side with the bigots that want you dead, don’t be such a fucking coward about it.