276
Truscums = transphobes (rule)
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
276 points (100.0% liked)
196
16597 readers
2096 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ultimately it's none of my business. It's between the trans person and their doctor, as long as they're following best practices and the plan of care is agreed to by the patient and the doctor, I'm good. I don't pretend to know better than someone living that reality. I wish them well and hope their transition goes well and they can find happiness in their body.
See I think that's the most important part and you hit the nail on the head. I transitioned 20 years ago and it was a lot different then. Nowadays everyone has the freedom to just be themselves, and people are getting too hung up on labels and pronouns. If everyone just pursued their own happiness and comfort in their own body, while ignoring the expectations put upon them by social media and society, they'd be a lot happier.
It's like these younger folks feel like there's a check list of things they need to do to "be trans". My brother in Christ just be yourself, and if you wanna call yourself trans in the process then more power to you. There's no rules to happiness beyond not hurting anyone else.
Tl;Dr "An ye harm none, do what ye will."
Thank you... Omg I really needed this comment today đź’™
Honestly, I've been feeling this way a lot lately. Especially with the labels and and pronouns part. I'll call anyone what they want, and I'm not gonna beleive they're not that, but some things are getting a bit ridiculous.
Like not to long ago I learned a new term, I don't remember what it is, but it was basically a word to describe somes sexuality when you don't know what their sexuality is. Like someone asks Bob what sexuality Greg is, and they don't know for certain.
But A) The term used an acronym for not/non and put it at the beginning of asexual, so it was not not asexual... or just sexual... I guess.
B) If someone asks, you can just say you don't know. We don't need a word to describe someone's sexuality as "I don't know."
I'm trying not to sound like an old person, and I do get why a lot of terms are uses. But it seems like every few months I hear about a new one, and it just seems like someone made it just to have a new term. I like that people are exploring and we are learning more
Other posts I've seen are things like "Can get guys/lesbians be gay guys/lesbians if they like non-binary people?"... Sure, why not? If someone wants to still use the term gay or lesbian, cool. If they think that puts them more towards bi to an extent, cool.
"Bi is transphobic, and if you would date trans people you're actually pan" Or they just grew up with the term bi, and that's how they identify. It's not an issue.
I'm just waiting for the day when I get called transphobic for being gay, which means I only date men and not trans men, so that I can point out that trans men are men, and we don't need to make it more complicated than just gay.
I agree with nearly all of your post except "being gay, which means I only date men and not trans men". That's completely valid that it is your preference, but many men identify as gay and do date trans men. They don't need to change their label or use another word to express that they are open to transmen.
Oh yeah, I'm not denying those men exist. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if some people start saying that like they do about people identifying as bi.
Oh I understand you now
A trans person can shoot dutasteride directly into their eyeball if they want or gurgle horse urine against the specific advice of a physician and it would still be fine.
I think the thrust of their point is it's between the individual and their doctor if they want to pursue medical things. The state should not be prescribing what they can/can't do in this domain and getting in the way of their relationship with their doctor. Much like the argument that keeping a pregnancy/aborting is between a pregnant individual and their doctor. It's a shorthand way of putting it we all sort of get. Yes they should be able to do it because it's their body but generally the whole thing involves a doctor one way or another.
And my point is it isn't.
Saying, "It's between an individual and their doctor." implies there could be a time when a person wants to ingest something or do something to their body that affects nobody but them (vaccinations I still advocate the administration of at gunpoint) and they shouldn't be allowed to because a doctor said no.
Doctors are their to advise, but not at the level of the individual to consent.
By all means keep antibiotics behind a key, but if a person wants to eat paint chips doctors should be there to monitor their blood for lead and explain why they maybe shouldn't, not to stop them.
When did I say a doctor can override a patient? That’s not remotely the standard of care in the US. Calling that a red herring is generous.
It isn't. It's between an individual and their damn self.
Alright I can tell when a conversation isn’t productive anymore. Have a good rest of your weekend.
When you stop listening?
I explained very clearly why the implications of the position you took were harmful.
I didn’t stop listening. I read what you wrote. You are not entitled to my attention, to be blunt. And vice versa!
This is a fight now, it’s not a discussion. We both made our cases, we both processed the other’s argument (I hope), and we both still disagree. Let’s just move on.
So much for leaving, huh?
Only because you're making it one.
You are some petty. Have a good one.
I'm petty? You're the one who's keeping this going.
Not trying to pick fights here.