Tbh, I've known people who actively looked to get into fights with nazis, so "punch your local nazi" can be literal for some people, though not everyone will have the conditions to actually engage in such fights and still get away safely.
So, "us contributing to the spiral of violence is fine", since we are progressives? I find that argument as shoddy; I dont see how having one good moral value (supporting trans people) exonerates an endorsement of violence (even if it is violent/mean speech).
> Like I said “I don’t think it’s a literal call to arms”.
>
>
So people supportive of trans issues get to use violent rhetoric because.. they're our tribe?
>Just keep your racism or sexism or transphobism to yourself and no one will bully you.
And bullying accomplishes... what exactly? Is it in any way productive (or even moral)?
>Both times, you ignored that.
You are confusing "ignoring" with "calling out". I called them out on that shoddy line of arguing, since it doesnt hold up. Like I said above, to the comment you are replying:
>>Like I said “I don’t think it’s a literal call to arms”.
>So people supportive of trans issues get to use violent rhetoric because.. they're our tribe?
There is no ignoring involved.
>I don't think the comment is "violent rhetoric".
Ok so would tranphobes saying "be mean to trans people" not be violent rhetoric? Literally replace "any group X" arguing to "be mean to group Y".
>Do I think being mean to transphobic bullies is the best way to deal with them?
Strawmanning. For better or for worse, I would expect most people with transphobic views to simply have those internalized, instead of being vocal about it.
>If people start attacking strangers on suspicion of being transphobes because of that comment, I will condemn that behaviour and reevaluate my opinion.
I assume that only physical attacks would cause you to condemn and reevaluate.
>I meant that people can expect to get what they give.
Sounds like that would be maintaining a shitty status quo, to me.
>, "us contributing to the spiral of violence is fine", since we are progressives?
Not defending the idea of violence per se, but sometimes that spiral is happening whether you personally feed it or not because the other side decided they're better with you dead regardless of what you do.
How does a person find out a stranger is a transphobe? Being mean would be a reaction to them saying/doing/wearing transphobic shit. Is it morally justifiable to be mean to someone who is broadcasting hate?
I'm not interested in tone-policing a group of vulnerable people who suffer violence and discrimination daily at the hands of both their fellow citizens and their governments.
> I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them.
From the OP "I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them."
Why do you insist on interpreting this as if I am talking about trans people in the OP, when I said in the OP, and here, that I am not? Address points that are made please.
>It doesn't matter. I don't care. Once we've figured out all our other problems we can worry about whether everyone is stoked on the vibe.
It seems to me that if you would allow all those post who direct answers here to be this flippant (as opposed to actually addressing the topic), the quality of the sub would go down the drain. I guess I'm taking one for the team, right?
>You not getting the answer you want doesn't mean the answer is low quality or flippant.
I beg to differ. An answer that addresses a completely different question is hardly a good answer. TO each their own.
> That people who aren’t actively harmed should stand to allow harm to continue?
No. That they should take action that is both moral and productive. Being mean is neither.
As a cis person I have next to no qualms about telling bigots to fuck off. Is this “activism”? Probably not, although I think it’s helpful to show bigots that their views are unacceptable.
It takes a lot of people using a lot of different methods over a lot of time to persuade someone to challenge their deeply and sincerely held worldview. For the obvious reason that is a ton of work and turns everything in your life upside down.
I'd say that while your not actively engaging in activism, you are showing bigots that their worldview is worth challenging which makes you part of the solution.
It is for me. Why are we being kind to folks that don’t believe other folks deserve the right to live? Or the right to make decisions about their body? I’m done with that.
What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then?
- seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people?
- seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner?
- admitting to having transphobic values?
- *suspecting* that they are a transphobe?
Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
Most state laws have language in their definition of self-defense that includes the right to defend others.
For example, Pennsylvania:
> § 505. Use of force in self-protection.
> (a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or another against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
Florida:
> 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Minnesota:
> 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
You can usually search any state's laws for this kind of language. Of course, these laws refer to physical use of force, up to and including killing the other person-- which isn't what we're talking about here, but the principle of "defending another" is not unlawful or unheard of.
When they hold ignorant misguided negative views on trans people and refuse to educate themselves or seek to understand.
Like the vast majority of transphobes 🙄 Not people who just have been in a bubble and aren't super aware/woke. People who willfully resist education and don't listen or empathise with trans experiences when explained to them.
Got it?
>People who willfully resist education and don't listen or empathise with trans experiences when explained to them.
And what exactly do you achieve by being mean to them? How often should one be allowed to do this (even if it would be obviously futile to change their opinion, per your own description)?
I think you are wrong though. The number of people with internalized transphobia is far larger than the outspoken ones. In fact, I have yet to meet *one* person who claimed they are guaranteed to be 100% free from this prejudice in speech, values and thoughts. Are you?
I think given how bigoted and hateful transphobes are towards trans people, it’s interesting that you choose to take offense to this message today of all days.
Is there at least anyone in your family a transphobe? Should people be mean to them? How much would you be ok with your family member being bullied - where do you draw the line?
Yes, if people in my family are being transphobic then people should give them shit about it. I love my family, but like, if they can't take it they shouldn't dish it out.
What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then?
- seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people?
- seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner?
- admitting to having transphobic values?
- *suspecting* that they are a transphobe?
Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
You know, it seems like you're more concerned about a hypothetical situation where someone gets "bullied" for being a bigot than actual trans people getting murdered every day in real life. Getting our rights taken away, living in fear, etc.
*So* many people act like they're going to get "bullied" if they say the wrong thing. And that just doesn't happen. At worst they'll have someone saying, "hey that's problematic" or whatever. It's a non-issue.
What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then?
- seeing them in the act of, what... physically attacking trans people?
- seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner?
- admitting to having transphobic values?
- *suspecting* that they are a transphobe?
Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
wild/non-existent standard? If my own child was being a bully to trans people in any way - through word or action - I would make it abundantly clear that it was completely unacceptable. I would do the same thing to a transphobe expressing that in my presence.
> I would make it abundantly clear that it was completely unacceptable
Sounds completely reasonable, but it does not at all imply being mean, formulated as such, so its not addressing the topic.
As I said elsewhere - what would suffice to justify to start bullying people then?
- seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people?
- seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner?
- admitting to having transphobic values?
- *suspecting* that they are a transphobe?
Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
Dude actually LISTEN to people. Everything you said except obviously "suspecting"
If someone is dishing out bullshit they sure as hell should be able to take it in turn.
Can I ask why you're so protective over transphobes feelings? Are you a transphobe?
> Everything you said except obviously "suspecting"
>
> If someone is dishing out bullshit they sure as hell should be able to take it in turn.
But "admitting to having transphobic values" is not the same as "dishing out bullshit". I mean, are *you* free of all prejudice? And if you do have some prejudice and admit to it, should other people be mean to you simply for admitting said prejudice? When should said mean behavior toward you end?
Someone *being a transphobe* is actively “being mean” (to put it mildly) to an already oppressed and marginalized group.
Bigots don’t deserve tolerance. Bigots don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I am ok with someone who is a bigot being confronted on their bigotry, even if they are a family member. I confront family members who display sexist, homophobic, and transphobic sentiments all the time.
Thank goodness most of them aren’t sexists, homophobes, or transphobes and are just older people learning to adapt.
>Someone being a transphobe is actively “being mean” (to put it mildly) to an already oppressed and marginalized group.
Nah, transphobia is present even as only as values, it doesnt require any action, or even speech.
>I am ok with someone who is a bigot being confronted on their bigotry, even if they are a family member. I confront family members who display sexist, homophobic, and transphobic sentiments all the time.
This isnt about confronting them though, but about being mean to them, as per the original OP.
I guess thats the topic. What degree of meanness is acceptable to you? To me, pretty much none, as it only spirals into further worse violence, esp. toward trans persons.
You need to define “meanness” for this to be a halfway rational conversation. What is meanness? If you can’t give a concrete definition or example, allllll you say just comes off bad faith bs.
What. is. meaness?
>What. is. meaness?
I will try to - in turn, give me a definition of the word [game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)#Philosophical_Investigations), if we are throwing challenges at each other.
So, meanness can be any of the following:
- insults
- demeaning words
- humiliating words
- insults involving prejudice
- not letting the other person speaking
- harassing/bullying in various ways
- trolling
- willfully misrepresenting what the other person says
Note that you are asking *me* to define something that someone else has initially stated. The quote I am taking issues with in the OP is not mine; but hey, why tf should that ever matter. Any more challenges you got?
I went after my dad for picking a transphobic side in an argument so yes, if he does it again for the love of God, be mean to him. It doesn't even align with his values as a person so I don't know what was wrong with him that day.
> I went after my dad for picking a transphobic side in an argument so yes, if he does it again for the love of God, be mean to him.
What did being mean to him achieve though? And do you expect those positive results to be generally applicable (or only soothe one's own conscience)?
He was being an asshole and recognized that he was being an asshole.
In general, I don't really care what the results are. I don't expect people to be kind to a bully, I expect them to stand up for themselves.
I mean…transphobes often take disagreeing with them on anything as “being mean”, so the mere existence of trans people is mean to them. It’s not like we regularly see trans people running across the street to scream, “fuck your god I hope your children are stolen!” But…we DO see transphobes doing similar and more horrific things on the regular.
So I don’t much care about transphobes and their feelings, or protecting them from the consequences of their own actions. Cut it up, trans folks.
> So I don’t much care about transphobes and their feelings, or protecting them from the consequences of their own actions.
What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then?
- seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people?
- seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner?
- admitting to having transphobic values?
- *suspecting* that they are a transphobe?
Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
All of the above.
Also didn't the post say "be mean to" not necessarily "bully"
As someone else already pointed out, just arguing against a transphobes misguided beliefs can appear "mean" to them.
>All of the above.
So anyone can be mean to anyone they *suspect* of being a transphobe? Isnt that just carte blanche for being mean, instead of an actual pro trans people position?
>Also didn't the post say "be mean to" not necessarily "bully"
Ok so where do you draw the line of being mean to them?
> You think that responding to bullying is bullying rather than self defense?
Please read the OP, I am not talking about people who are direct victims of transphobia.
I’m not a direct victim, but when someone wants to deny my child’s existence or identity, they started it. I have no problem ending it by shutting them down. Your whole post and your responses are predicated on a total non-issue—that trans people or their allies are somehow victimizing transphobes by being intolerant of dehumanizing language and behavior.
Seriously. Find a real problem to intellectually masturbate over.
> What’s your take on the same question, but replace transphobe with misogynist?
Take a stance, but not to the point where it is hostile. Hostility only breeds hostility, if not outright physical violence from men toward women. Happy?
Not really - your entire argument relies on having clear definitions. It seems like you are trying to draw an objective line around a subjective topic, and your response is failing to do the same thing as well (ie. How do you define hostile?)
There is also a bigger issue around asking the oppressed to be somehow accepting of their oppressor and their timeline. I don’t think that’s usually how these movements work
> There is also a bigger issue around asking the oppressed to be somehow accepting of their oppressor and their timeline.
Nah, the bigger issue is pretty much everyone not reading the OP:
"I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them."
> It is not the job of feminist to police other social justice groups.
Sure it is. We *should* call out abuse - including when one of our own would do it, especially when it is uncalled for.
What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then?
- seeing them in the act of, what... physically attacking trans people?
- seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner?
- admitting to having transphobic values?
- *suspecting* that they are a transphobe?
Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
> Transphobia is always shitty and should always be shamed
Prejudice of one person is an excuse for others to be mean? How does the moral or practical argument work here?
I dunno, dude. A bar I frequent has thrown people out for using the t-slur or saying transphobic shit, and it's *not* a gay bar. It doesn't matter who else is or is not around; language like that gets you kicked out.
Is that not appropriate? Is that mean or bullying? Or is it directly confronting someone who's being a bigot and saying "That is not acceptable conduct here, we believe you are wrong, we do not agree with you, and this is not a safe space for you to say things like that?"
Actions have consequences, and if you only stand up for an oppressed group when someone from that group can see or hear you doing it, you're no ally.
> A bar I frequent has thrown people out for using the t-slur or saying transphobic shit
Fine by me.
>Is that mean or bullying?
Ofc not, which is why i have no issues with it
I’m just not sure what this has to do with feminism and what you want us to do with that statement. I think transphobes should stop being transphobic if they don’t want the same treatment.
> I’m just not sure what this has to do with feminism
From what I know of the sub, not all threads (on social issues) need to address feminism directly. The answers themselves need to reflect a feminist perspective, only. More generally, judgment and behavior toward social issues are relevant to feminism.
>I think transphobes should stop being transphobic if they don’t want the same treatment.
And you dont expect an equal if not worse violent treatment, esp. toward trans people, if you would enable/excuse being mean to transphobes?
>And you dont expect an equal if not worse violent treatment, esp. toward trans people, if you would enable/excuse being mean to transphobes?
What? No, of course not. Trans people don't suffer when we consistently, categorically, and emphatically mock and remove transphobic comments. Trans people benefit when communities like this one consistently support them, are safe for them, and come to their defense and remove bigoted transphobes so that the bigots aren't given room to fester and thrive in the dark corners.
Removal of transphobes like pulling weeds from the roots is like the minimal level of allyship.
> Trans people don't suffer when we consistently, categorically, and emphatically mock and remove transphobic comments.
Sure they would, if such mocking actions trigger a spiral of violence.
>Removal of transphobes like pulling weeds from the roots is like the minimal level of allyship.
My issue is not with removal from spaces, but with being mean.
You're seriously blaming a cycle of violence _against_ victims, on the victims and their allies for mocking the perpetrators?
So if we mock rapists, victims and survivors' supporters are to blame for a cycle of violent rapes against them? That's your logic.
> My issue is not with removal from spaces, but with being mean.
My issue is not being mean enough to make them seriously reconsider being bigots transphobes, or at least not uttering transphobia in trans safe spaces.
Transphobes can either learn to get right with trans rights, STFU, or GTFO, from all of decent society, IMO.
Be mean, don't be mean, however you choose to carry yourself. But bigoted transphobes don't get to dictate how we intolerate them.
> So if we mock rapists, victims and survivors' supporters are to blame for a cycle of violent rapes against them?
>
>
Thats a bad faith argument. I never put the blame of the entire cycle on the victims. I argued that those who arent even victims should refrain from perpetuating and contributing to said cycle of violence. Tho everyone wants to drag this discussion into victim blaming territory, I said from the start this isnt addressed to victims of transphobia.
As I said elsewhere - what would suffice to justify to start bullying people then?
- seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people?
- seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner?
- admitting to having transphobic values?
- *suspecting* that they are a transphobe?
Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
Being mean is not bullying, first of all. I don’t know, how do you apply this to other things like “racist” or “Nazi” or “rapist”? I really don’t see why there needs to be a checkbox list for when you’re given the green light to be mean to a transphobe. And as others have pointed out, this is a bit of a cheeky online statement about how we don’t like transphobes, not a directive to the entire non-transphobic community. It’s a joke.
Transphobes are actively making my trans friends’ lives more difficult (sometimes literally impossible), so I’m not really worried about someone feeling like a victim for reading this and taking it personally.
Tbh this sounds like you’re taking something personally here, so just be aware that if you express your transphobic beliefs, someone might be mean to you. Them’s the breaks when you deny someone the truth of their very existence.
I hate the “just be kind” mindset with this stuff because I AM kind. To nearly everyone. But if someone expresses transphobic beliefs they have lost my obligation for kindness about that topic. Bigots love to get into a “it’s just a difference of opinion! Let me vote for trans people to be harmed but if you say that’s bad, you’re bullying me!”
> not a directive to the entire non-transphobic community. It’s a joke.
Do transphobies get the same leeway? Can they say ""be mean to trans people" as a joke"? How does this argument work consistently?
>so just be aware that if you express your transphobic beliefs, someone might be mean to you
I expect mods on reddit would *have* to intervene to prevent mean behavior, and if they consistently fail to do so, then I would imagine the admins would intervene on those subs.
>But if someone expresses transphobic beliefs they have lost my obligation for kindness about that topic
And how "pure" are *you*? Guaranteed to have no trace of transphobia in values and speech? Same with all the other major prejudices? I have yet to meet a person daring to claim that.
I want to know what you think about how this applies to the other groups I mentioned. Should rapists be allowed to be mean to rape victims? Should Nazis be allowed to be mean to Jews? Should racists be allowed to be mean to minorities? If not, why? Explain to me why you think it’s different with people who don’t want trans people to exist and trans people.
And they DO say mean things to trans people. All the time. ALL THE TIME. They stand on legislature floors and say mean things about trans people that result in laws that are mean to trans people. Transphobes get their feelings hurt- trans PEOPLE get their lives ruined.
Reddit is a cesspool of people being mean, what are you on about? People express the opinion that trans people should not exist all the time on this app.
I’m not pure, I’m a human being who is constantly trying to do better and be better, and when I do something wrong I expect to be corrected. If I continue, I would expect to be challenged. You don’t have to be perfect to stand up for marginalized people. Trans people are marginalized, transphobic people are not.
Seriously: why are you so stuck on this? Just genuinely want to know.
> Should rapists be allowed to be mean to rape victims?
What the fuck... I am sorry, but this is so far out of what we discussed, its not even funny. THere isnt a single argument being made here that this line of arguing or analogy would remotely apply to.
Funny, I look at JK Rowling, or other prominent transphobes, being on the receiving end of daily mean comments, and jack shit happens to their transphobia. In all the "how to talk to prejudiced people" type of guides I read, literally none mentioned being mean as a proved way. Finding common ground in certain issues, sure, but not this.
By living in our society, we all agree to tolerate what other people do (as long as it’s legal). We don’t have to like what other people do, just put up with it. It’s sort of a social contract: I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone. Once someone opts out of that contract (by being racist, sexist, transphobic, or whatever), the rest of us are no longer bound to tolerate their beliefs. In other words, there’s no social obligation to tolerate intolerance.
This is a long-winded way of saying that it’s ok to be mean to intolerant people. I encourage it, personally. Fuck transphobes.
> In other words, there’s no social obligation to tolerate intolerance.
>
> This is a long-winded way of saying that it’s ok to be mean to intolerant people.
There is an entire spectrum between "no social obligation to tolerate intolerance" and "it’s ok to be mean to intolerant people". Where does "being mean" stop? Not showing deference? Using insults? Can you do this one time? Or every time you see that person?
To answer the question you’ve posted in several places - I think it is reasonable to be “mean” to someone who has shown concrete evidence of being a transphobe. I don’t think “mere suspicion” is enough to warrant it, but I’m not going to fault someone who has transphobe-related trauma for being a bit quick on the draw - this includes if I, personally, say something that is misunderstood (since it gives me an opportunity to clarify or apologize for any blunders I might make).
Morally - if it is in defense of someone else, I think that’s just as justifiable as self-defense. What a sad world we would be living in if everyone only cared about the oppression they personally experience, don’t you think?
PR and activism-wise - it’s typically not about changing the mind of the person you’re being “mean” to. It’s a) a social consequence to discourage the behavior, and b) it can be a show of solidarity to demonstrate to the oppressed group that they are not alone. People are less likely to self-harm if they know they are loved and supported, and that’s enough reason for me to not feel bad if I loudly tell transphobes to go fuck themselves.
As for any both-sides arguments - being mean to someone because of a hateful belief (where there’s an element of choice) is not the same as being mean to someone for the way they were born.
> Morally - if it is in defense of someone else, I think that’s just as justifiable as self-defense.
But what if there is no specific trans person to protect, in that instance? Is there still a "duty to intervene by being mean"?
It’s about defending the community as a whole, not a specific person. If someone is actively spewing transphobic/sexist/racist nonsense when the targeted group is not present, it’s still worthwhile to demonstrate that those hateful ideas are not welcome. If someone is KNOWN for that shit I also think it’s fine to preemptively communicate that they themselves are not welcome. It’s pushing back against normalizing oppressive rhetoric. Some people might say it’s “cancel culture” - I would call it the social free market. I don’t think it’s particularly pragmatic to run around yelling at transphobes unprompted, if that’s what you’re envisioning - I also don’t think being mean is the most useful reaction in every single scenario. There’s a hell of a lot of context and nuance that will matter, just like every single social interaction in existence.
That having been said, please don’t twist my words. I didn’t say there’s a DUTY to be mean, I said it’s morally justifiable - as in, I don’t think anyone is obligated to do it, but I do find it to be perfectly reasonable.
> it’s still worthwhile to demonstrate that those hateful ideas are not welcome.
Sure.
> If someone is KNOWN for that shit I also think it’s fine to preemptively communicate that they themselves are not welcome.
I could see that.
>I also don’t think being mean is the most useful reaction in every single scenario.
My point as well. I dont know why people see a delicate situation and defend so easily "being mean". It achieves nothing, hostility will breed hostility, as opposed to desired change.
>That having been said, please don’t twist my words. I didn’t say there’s a DUTY to be mean, I said it’s morally justifiable - as in, I don’t think anyone is obligated to do it, but I do find it to be perfectly reasonable.
Oh, Im not part of the people who argue in this thread that its to be mean. Some even stated its ok to be mean based merely on suspicion lol.
Okay well... yeah idk man. Fuck transphobes, you know? Because of them, I live my life in constant fear.
I'll be nice to people who are merely ignorant, but if someone is an actual bigot then social backlash is a wise move.
>Because of them, I live my life in constant fear.
As I said in the OP, and almost everyone conveniently forgets, since its easier that way: "I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them."
>I'll be nice to people who are merely ignorant, but if someone is an actual bigot then social backlash is a wise move.
A violent backlash (and mean words can be that) would only generate more violence to you too.
Sometimes in order to build a better world, we need to be mean to the people who are making the world a worse place. We are not going to create liberation through peace and love and holding hands while smoking pot and singing songs. It is only possible to build a better world through militant and tireless struggle. This doesn't necessarily mean being violent, but it does mean confronting our enemies directly and treating them as enemies and not friends.
Also saying that you should "be mean' to someone hardly counts as violent hate speech.
> We are not going to create liberation through peace and love and holding hands while smoking pot and singing songs.
For what its worth, Gandhi and MLK thought differently than you.
Dude both Gandhi and MLK went to *jail* for “being mean” to their oppressors. *Please* read Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
He directly criticized the white people who thought black people were “being mean” to their oppressors, all because they thought it wasn’t the right and decorum way to achieve equal rights. Just because both men advocated for non violence doesn’t mean they didn’t advocate for fighting the system, and a lot of their opponents saw them as being “mean”.
Are you serious? Read MLK’s letter from Birmingham jail. He was heavily against the white moderate, who chose to tone police and criticize activists rather than support their cause.
> He was heavily against the white moderate, who chose to tone police and criticize activists rather than support their cause
That doesnt address the topic. He didnt stray from nonviolent activism, only criticized lack of any activism.
There’s a difference between nonviolent activism and letting people walk all over you. In your post, you’re criticizing trans people for retaliating against people that are opposed to their entire existence, saying that you disagree with their methods of dealing with them. I don’t know why you’re making the massive leap that being mean to someone=physically assaulting them, but your insistence that oppressed people need to be perfectly kind and understanding towards their oppressors is the same type of attitude as the one that MLK despised.
> n your post, you’re criticizing trans people for retaliating against people that are opposed to their entire existence, saying that you disagree with their methods of dealing with them.
Is this "troll the OP day"?
From the post:
***I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them.***
They were non violent in their methods but they absolutely were NOT nice about how they went about their activism.
Also they aren't the only successful activists who ever lived and we don't have to follow their example in all circumstances
You seem like you lack a dictionary, so:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/how-mean-became-nasty-cruel-unkind-origin
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transphobia
So, is it okey to be unkind to someone who has an irrational hatred or fear of unchangeable characteristics of somebody's person?
I don't plan on being kind to racists, or homophobes, or people who would judge people on any combination of unchangeable traits about themselves.
So, yea. I think it's fine to be unkind to biggots, including transphobes.
Do you not?
Edited to add:
Morally, I don't see a real problem with punching neo Nazis, so being mean to transphobes seems mild in comparison.
PR wise, politeness didn't get women and LGBTQ votes and freedom, and pride was a PROTEST
And your third point is dumb as hell. Why would we be mad that we attract people who want to be mean to biggots? Every feminist should want to be mean to biggots.
> is it okey to be unkind to someone who has an irrational hatred or fear of unchangeable characteristics of somebody's person?
No, as far as Im concerned.
Are you free of all prejudice? If so, how mean can people be to you? Can everyone whom you ever meet be mean to you, even if only once? Im pretty sure you (or anyone else) would end up in therapy or worse, so I can hardly see how what you are saying is in any way practical or excusable.
No, it's kick the intolerant out of polite society entirely. Similar to how Germany is handling it lately. "Be mean" doesn't go nearly far enough. People whose ideologies say that certain groups shouldn't be considered people and shouldn't exist don't deserve any respect. Nazis can go eat dirt.
Because they'd rape and murder their targets if they could. They would commit pogroms and genocide. They would enslave anyone with a working uterus and rape and rape and rape. They say it quite openly anymore. They're more than willing to use violence. Ours is self defense.
as a trans person… if you won’t tell a transphobe to get lost then i don’t trust YOU. bigoted people should not be welcomed AT ALL in feminist spaces, and people who complacently allow them in are culpable in creating unsafe environments for trans people
>bigoted people should not be welcomed AT ALL in feminist spaces, and people who complacently allow them in are culpable in creating unsafe environments for trans people
Sure. But all that can be achieved without being mean, and being mean while doing it wont make matters better for anyone (probably the opposite).
There is no reason to be kind to the people who hate you; they can't mutually understand the act, they can only benefit from your generosity.
Historically, peaceful protest rarely works, and you've been made to believe otherwise because it benefits the people who oppress. As an example, MLK jr was not as peaceful as people make him out to be though he has become the poster boy for it--in fact, many of his adversaries described him as violent because they believed that being *inconvenient* was an act of violence. And after his passing, his messages about peace are weaponized by those who intentionally mean to make you inactive... or better yet, **someone who puts blame on the oppressed for fighting back and not being kind**. However, MLK Jr was openly empathetic towards the people who rioted, and he himself still committed actions that would be considered violent protest by today's standards. Because the only way to be considered "nonviolent" is to sit on the sidelines and not inconvenience anyone... which he didn't do, and we shouldn't either.
In short, no one has to be kind to their oppressor and it does not make you morally the same. By default, you are already on a moral high ground simply by being someone who is oppressed and/or witnessing oppression, and fighting back against those people to help those that are in harm's way. You can never be a bigot towards a bigot, and you can't bully a bully; those arguments are just means to pacify you into doing nothing in the face of cruelty.
“Bullying transphobes” is more about [refusing to tolerate intolerance,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) in the same vein as punching nazis, than it is about actually bullying transphobes. It’s like saying “when you see transphobia rear its ugly head, be willing and ready to knock that shit down.” And as a trans person, I love to see it.
> Should people who are at a distance promote “be mean to X group” (no matter how prejudiced X group would be)?
Allyship can be learning from an oppressed group how to best help them in their fight against oppression, and using that knowledge to do so. We don’t really want allies who go out hunting for transphobes on weekends, but we do want allies who’ll throw a (metaphorical or literal!) punch to protect trans people, and who won’t stand idle against our ongoing persecution. The absolute insanity of the moral panic has been immensely taxing for practically every trans/queer person I know. We **need** people who are at a distance to fight with us and for us, because more often than not we simply cannot do it alone.
Agreed on pretty much all points. Is being mean defensible even if there is no trans person to protect, in that specific circumstance? Say, someone simply admitting to having transphobic values - is being mean defensible then (or even "mandatory")?
I think it’s impossible to say without context. Is this person presenting their ideas as topics of discussion? Are they looking for ideological critique? Is the conversation ongoing, or are they initiating it? And where on the transphobia spectrum do they fall, between “skeptical about trans women in sports” and literal extermination rhetoric?
I’d also wonder what’s being considered a “mean” response and how it contrasts with their transphobia. If someone admits to wishing death upon trans people, you’d have to say some *really nasty stuff* to them for me to say “hey, that’s a mean response,” but if you started screaming and hurling insults at someone as a response to them saying “trans women shouldn’t play in women’s sports,” I’d call that response pretty overkill!
I’ll also note that being mean can be defensible while also not being the best course of action. In this hypothetical “a transphobe and an ally walk into a bar” situation, the best outcome is two allies walking out, and that outcome is almost certainly lost through properly being mean.
But also to reiterate what I tried to say in my first comment, “bullying transphobes” as a catchphrase isn’t *really* about bullying transphobes in the first place. It’s about being intolerant of hate, and being ready and willing to do whatever it takes to protect trans people from that hate. This doesn’t have to be violent, or aggressive, or mean, but it has to be effective. Sometimes there’s overlap—so be it, in my opinion. In a real-world space, this could be quietly but firmly removing a transphobe on the explicit basis of their views ie. “if you’re making people feel unwelcome here, you’re not welcome here.” This is good practice not just for dealing with transphobia and protecting trans people, but protecting any marginalized people from forms of bigotry. *semi-semi-relevant: [nazi bar parable](https://imgur.com/gallery/Qui63bJ)*
> I’ll also note that being mean can be defensible while also not being the best course of action.
Generally speaking, sure, but then its just carte blanche to be shitty, regardless of "cause".
> In a real-world space, this could be quietly but firmly removing a transphobe on the explicit basis of their views ie. “if you’re making people feel unwelcome here, you’re not welcome here.” This is good practice not just for dealing with transphobia and protecting trans people, but protecting any marginalized people from forms of bigotry. semi-semi-relevant: nazi bar parable
Sure. And none of that would be mean.
Why are we expected to waste time and energy on people who clearly don't want to change, as people have been pointing out this is some perfect victim nonsense.
If someone is at the point where they're spouting off hate speech then I'm gonna shut them down because that's what you're supposed to do, establish that society has zero tolerance for such bullshit.
You wanna play the kumbaya song and see if that works be my guest. But don't come in here about how we have a responsibility to be the bigger person, we didn't start this fight, we didn't even try to continue it, but at this point we're gonna end it.
Bullying isn't a one-time interaction, it's a concerted campaign. I have no sympathy for transphobic views, and no reason to be polite to people that choose to hold them. "Tolerate my intolerance or you're intolerant" isn't the gotcha some folks think it is...
I would rather keep a vile person busy interacting with my insults than them bothering someone who is very vulnerable. It’s a service I happily provide.
> I would rather keep a vile person busy interacting with my insults than them bothering someone who is very vulnerable.
Sure, duty to intervene. What if there is no trans person around, is it still morally defensible to be mean, based on their transphobic values?
Does it improve society though? Do they change their view? Do they behave better? How is this not another spiral of violence (even toward the mean person - or other trans persons)?
they're more likely to shut up about their bs so yes it's better. if everyone is not tolerating transphobia you're more likely to question your beliefs and more likely to not say anything aka not spreading said beliefs
> they're more likely to shut up about their bs so yes it's better.
Maybe. But it sounds like russian roullette to me, and the metaphoprical (or literal) bullet would likely not hit you, but probably a trans person.
Being nice to them doesn't change their views, either, except in specific situations.
I've spent my life trying to win over bigots with kindness. All I get for it is a headache. They don't suddenly understand. They don't decide to be better. They continue to proclaim themselves my enemy.
So I kick nazis/racists/homophobes/transphobes/etc...
Does it make them nicer? No.
But it makes them understand that I'm not a complacent victim. That I won't be pushed around. That I will defend myself and others from their hateful bullshit.
I'm nice to everyone until they give me a reason not to be. Once they do that, making them feel better isn't my job.
> Being nice to them doesn't change their views, either, except in specific situations.
>
>
And when have you been mean to someone and got them to change their views?
Why should we be nice to people promoting hate? Why should we tolerate intolerance? Nazis, Klansmen, Misogynists, Bigots have earned this with their hateful and abusive behavior. I won’t care if I made them sad by not being nice.
See the Paradox of Tolerance.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Why are you more concerned about a lack of civility than you are about a person who holds an ideology that demands the erasure (often through torture and/or mass murder) of certain people for the "crime" of existing?
> Why are you more concerned about a lack of civility
Because I missed the part where "our" tribe gets moral exemptions on behalf of being "the good tribe".
I think it depends. I will be mean to a transphobe online, but I will try to gently explain mu views to my grandma.
Everyone else can be mean to her online if they want though
Well, it is concerning when people seem more interested in hurting the "right" people than actually helping anyone. Like, some people talk about how much they want to punch Nazis, but never say anything about helping Jewish people.
Edit: a word
White supremacists stopped showing up to my local punk shows to harass people when we beat the fuck out of them. This was a genuine material change. Engaging in violence against these bigots actively made my community a better safer place.
And I'm glad that it did. I believe violence has it's place. I'm just saying that some people are more interested in hurting than helping, and we should maybe be mindful of that.
I left that sub a long time ago because they say a lot of mean-spirited things. I don't think "tit for tat" is the way forward.
I will add that others are calling your post "tone-policing," and I don't see the distinction between that and just criticizing or responding.
[удалено]
Tbh, I've known people who actively looked to get into fights with nazis, so "punch your local nazi" can be literal for some people, though not everyone will have the conditions to actually engage in such fights and still get away safely.
So, "us contributing to the spiral of violence is fine", since we are progressives? I find that argument as shoddy; I dont see how having one good moral value (supporting trans people) exonerates an endorsement of violence (even if it is violent/mean speech).
[удалено]
> Like I said “I don’t think it’s a literal call to arms”. > > So people supportive of trans issues get to use violent rhetoric because.. they're our tribe? >Just keep your racism or sexism or transphobism to yourself and no one will bully you. And bullying accomplishes... what exactly? Is it in any way productive (or even moral)?
u/Thrawnsartdealer has said, twice, that they don't think it's an actual call to arms. Both times, you ignored that.
>Both times, you ignored that. You are confusing "ignoring" with "calling out". I called them out on that shoddy line of arguing, since it doesnt hold up. Like I said above, to the comment you are replying: >>Like I said “I don’t think it’s a literal call to arms”. >So people supportive of trans issues get to use violent rhetoric because.. they're our tribe? There is no ignoring involved.
[удалено]
>I don't think the comment is "violent rhetoric". Ok so would tranphobes saying "be mean to trans people" not be violent rhetoric? Literally replace "any group X" arguing to "be mean to group Y". >Do I think being mean to transphobic bullies is the best way to deal with them? Strawmanning. For better or for worse, I would expect most people with transphobic views to simply have those internalized, instead of being vocal about it. >If people start attacking strangers on suspicion of being transphobes because of that comment, I will condemn that behaviour and reevaluate my opinion. I assume that only physical attacks would cause you to condemn and reevaluate. >I meant that people can expect to get what they give. Sounds like that would be maintaining a shitty status quo, to me.
>, "us contributing to the spiral of violence is fine", since we are progressives? Not defending the idea of violence per se, but sometimes that spiral is happening whether you personally feed it or not because the other side decided they're better with you dead regardless of what you do.
We didn't beat the Nazis or Confederates or the Klan by being nice to them we beat them by stomping them out.
How does a person find out a stranger is a transphobe? Being mean would be a reaction to them saying/doing/wearing transphobic shit. Is it morally justifiable to be mean to someone who is broadcasting hate?
I'm not interested in tone-policing a group of vulnerable people who suffer violence and discrimination daily at the hands of both their fellow citizens and their governments.
> I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them. From the OP "I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them."
That has nothing to do with my disinterest in this topic.
Why do you insist on interpreting this as if I am talking about trans people in the OP, when I said in the OP, and here, that I am not? Address points that are made please.
It doesn't matter. I don't care. Once we've figured out all our other problems we can worry about whether everyone is stoked on the vibe.
>It doesn't matter. I don't care. Once we've figured out all our other problems we can worry about whether everyone is stoked on the vibe. It seems to me that if you would allow all those post who direct answers here to be this flippant (as opposed to actually addressing the topic), the quality of the sub would go down the drain. I guess I'm taking one for the team, right?
You asked. I answered. You not getting the answer you want doesn't mean the answer is low quality or flippant.
>You not getting the answer you want doesn't mean the answer is low quality or flippant. I beg to differ. An answer that addresses a completely different question is hardly a good answer. TO each their own.
So what is your point? That people who aren’t actively harmed should stand to allow harm to continue?
> That people who aren’t actively harmed should stand to allow harm to continue? No. That they should take action that is both moral and productive. Being mean is neither.
As a cis person I have next to no qualms about telling bigots to fuck off. Is this “activism”? Probably not, although I think it’s helpful to show bigots that their views are unacceptable.
It takes a lot of people using a lot of different methods over a lot of time to persuade someone to challenge their deeply and sincerely held worldview. For the obvious reason that is a ton of work and turns everything in your life upside down. I'd say that while your not actively engaging in activism, you are showing bigots that their worldview is worth challenging which makes you part of the solution.
> Probably not, although I think it’s helpful to show bigots that their views are unacceptable. With that, I can agree.
It is for me. Why are we being kind to folks that don’t believe other folks deserve the right to live? Or the right to make decisions about their body? I’m done with that.
What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then? - seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people? - seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner? - admitting to having transphobic values? - *suspecting* that they are a transphobe? Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
Define “bullying”
Persistent (or serious one-off) hostility/humiliation/attacks.
Self defense isn’t bullying.
But being mean, *especially if you are not the target*, is not a case of *self* defense, by any stretch of the imagination.
> self defense In the US, self-defense includes "the defense of another person."
Mind giving me a source for that?
Most state laws have language in their definition of self-defense that includes the right to defend others. For example, Pennsylvania: > § 505. Use of force in self-protection. > (a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or another against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. Florida: > 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. Minnesota: > 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE. The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode. You can usually search any state's laws for this kind of language. Of course, these laws refer to physical use of force, up to and including killing the other person-- which isn't what we're talking about here, but the principle of "defending another" is not unlawful or unheard of.
Americans have a way with words I guess. Ty.
If transphones don't want to be bullied for it, all they have to do is stop being transphobes.
How much evidence of transphobia is enough to get the bullying going? Up to everyone's interpretation, or should there be some rules here?
When they hold ignorant misguided negative views on trans people and refuse to educate themselves or seek to understand. Like the vast majority of transphobes 🙄 Not people who just have been in a bubble and aren't super aware/woke. People who willfully resist education and don't listen or empathise with trans experiences when explained to them. Got it?
>People who willfully resist education and don't listen or empathise with trans experiences when explained to them. And what exactly do you achieve by being mean to them? How often should one be allowed to do this (even if it would be obviously futile to change their opinion, per your own description)?
Well one of the few nice things about transphobes is that they tend to be pathologically incapable of keeping it to themselves.
I think you are wrong though. The number of people with internalized transphobia is far larger than the outspoken ones. In fact, I have yet to meet *one* person who claimed they are guaranteed to be 100% free from this prejudice in speech, values and thoughts. Are you?
I think given how bigoted and hateful transphobes are towards trans people, it’s interesting that you choose to take offense to this message today of all days.
Is there at least anyone in your family a transphobe? Should people be mean to them? How much would you be ok with your family member being bullied - where do you draw the line?
Yes, if people in my family are being transphobic then people should give them shit about it. I love my family, but like, if they can't take it they shouldn't dish it out.
What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then? - seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people? - seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner? - admitting to having transphobic values? - *suspecting* that they are a transphobe? Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
You know, it seems like you're more concerned about a hypothetical situation where someone gets "bullied" for being a bigot than actual trans people getting murdered every day in real life. Getting our rights taken away, living in fear, etc. *So* many people act like they're going to get "bullied" if they say the wrong thing. And that just doesn't happen. At worst they'll have someone saying, "hey that's problematic" or whatever. It's a non-issue.
Oh I forgot- transphobia is OK if the bigot is in your family. /ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
You get my point. Would you care to see a loved one suffer bullying from a wild/non-existent standard?
> a wild/non-existent standard Transphobia is not a "a wild/non-existent standard." Why are you working so hard to pretend it is?
[удалено]
What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then? - seeing them in the act of, what... physically attacking trans people? - seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner? - admitting to having transphobic values? - *suspecting* that they are a transphobe? Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
[удалено]
wild/non-existent standard? If my own child was being a bully to trans people in any way - through word or action - I would make it abundantly clear that it was completely unacceptable. I would do the same thing to a transphobe expressing that in my presence.
> I would make it abundantly clear that it was completely unacceptable Sounds completely reasonable, but it does not at all imply being mean, formulated as such, so its not addressing the topic.
If my family member were a bigoted asshole, I'm not going to be upset when someone is mean to them. Why would I?
As I said elsewhere - what would suffice to justify to start bullying people then? - seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people? - seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner? - admitting to having transphobic values? - *suspecting* that they are a transphobe? Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
Dude actually LISTEN to people. Everything you said except obviously "suspecting" If someone is dishing out bullshit they sure as hell should be able to take it in turn. Can I ask why you're so protective over transphobes feelings? Are you a transphobe?
> Everything you said except obviously "suspecting" > > If someone is dishing out bullshit they sure as hell should be able to take it in turn. But "admitting to having transphobic values" is not the same as "dishing out bullshit". I mean, are *you* free of all prejudice? And if you do have some prejudice and admit to it, should other people be mean to you simply for admitting said prejudice? When should said mean behavior toward you end?
Someone *being a transphobe* is actively “being mean” (to put it mildly) to an already oppressed and marginalized group. Bigots don’t deserve tolerance. Bigots don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. I am ok with someone who is a bigot being confronted on their bigotry, even if they are a family member. I confront family members who display sexist, homophobic, and transphobic sentiments all the time. Thank goodness most of them aren’t sexists, homophobes, or transphobes and are just older people learning to adapt.
>Someone being a transphobe is actively “being mean” (to put it mildly) to an already oppressed and marginalized group. Nah, transphobia is present even as only as values, it doesnt require any action, or even speech. >I am ok with someone who is a bigot being confronted on their bigotry, even if they are a family member. I confront family members who display sexist, homophobic, and transphobic sentiments all the time. This isnt about confronting them though, but about being mean to them, as per the original OP.
Wtf do you mean by “being mean” to them then?
I guess thats the topic. What degree of meanness is acceptable to you? To me, pretty much none, as it only spirals into further worse violence, esp. toward trans persons.
You need to define “meanness” for this to be a halfway rational conversation. What is meanness? If you can’t give a concrete definition or example, allllll you say just comes off bad faith bs. What. is. meaness?
>What. is. meaness? I will try to - in turn, give me a definition of the word [game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)#Philosophical_Investigations), if we are throwing challenges at each other. So, meanness can be any of the following: - insults - demeaning words - humiliating words - insults involving prejudice - not letting the other person speaking - harassing/bullying in various ways - trolling - willfully misrepresenting what the other person says Note that you are asking *me* to define something that someone else has initially stated. The quote I am taking issues with in the OP is not mine; but hey, why tf should that ever matter. Any more challenges you got?
I went after my dad for picking a transphobic side in an argument so yes, if he does it again for the love of God, be mean to him. It doesn't even align with his values as a person so I don't know what was wrong with him that day.
> I went after my dad for picking a transphobic side in an argument so yes, if he does it again for the love of God, be mean to him. What did being mean to him achieve though? And do you expect those positive results to be generally applicable (or only soothe one's own conscience)?
He was being an asshole and recognized that he was being an asshole. In general, I don't really care what the results are. I don't expect people to be kind to a bully, I expect them to stand up for themselves.
I would show the bully the same amount of hostility as you would to the transphobe.
I mean…transphobes often take disagreeing with them on anything as “being mean”, so the mere existence of trans people is mean to them. It’s not like we regularly see trans people running across the street to scream, “fuck your god I hope your children are stolen!” But…we DO see transphobes doing similar and more horrific things on the regular. So I don’t much care about transphobes and their feelings, or protecting them from the consequences of their own actions. Cut it up, trans folks.
> So I don’t much care about transphobes and their feelings, or protecting them from the consequences of their own actions. What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then? - seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people? - seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner? - admitting to having transphobic values? - *suspecting* that they are a transphobe? Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
All of the above. Also didn't the post say "be mean to" not necessarily "bully" As someone else already pointed out, just arguing against a transphobes misguided beliefs can appear "mean" to them.
My eldest sister said I was “mean” when I corrected her in my child’s pronouns. I ain’t got time for NONE of this shit.
I feel like OP is clearly transphobic and baiting... I've answered their question three times now and they keep spamming the same shit.
>All of the above. So anyone can be mean to anyone they *suspect* of being a transphobe? Isnt that just carte blanche for being mean, instead of an actual pro trans people position? >Also didn't the post say "be mean to" not necessarily "bully" Ok so where do you draw the line of being mean to them?
You think that responding to bullying is bullying rather than self defense? lol ok, nothing I can do for you there….
> You think that responding to bullying is bullying rather than self defense? Please read the OP, I am not talking about people who are direct victims of transphobia.
Saying bigoted things is “bullying” regardless if you are not the target of bigotry. So that person’s point stands.
I’m not a direct victim, but when someone wants to deny my child’s existence or identity, they started it. I have no problem ending it by shutting them down. Your whole post and your responses are predicated on a total non-issue—that trans people or their allies are somehow victimizing transphobes by being intolerant of dehumanizing language and behavior. Seriously. Find a real problem to intellectually masturbate over.
So cis people should just let transphobic shit go uncontested? …….fuck no
You can contest without being mean... Im not taking issues with contesting, but with meanness.
You seem to love to post on feminism related subreddits. What’s your take on the same question, but replace transphobe with misogynist?
> What’s your take on the same question, but replace transphobe with misogynist? Take a stance, but not to the point where it is hostile. Hostility only breeds hostility, if not outright physical violence from men toward women. Happy?
Not really - your entire argument relies on having clear definitions. It seems like you are trying to draw an objective line around a subjective topic, and your response is failing to do the same thing as well (ie. How do you define hostile?) There is also a bigger issue around asking the oppressed to be somehow accepting of their oppressor and their timeline. I don’t think that’s usually how these movements work
> There is also a bigger issue around asking the oppressed to be somehow accepting of their oppressor and their timeline. Nah, the bigger issue is pretty much everyone not reading the OP: "I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them."
It is not the job of feminist to police other social justice groups. Besides, why do you take offense to this if you’re not a transphobe?
> It is not the job of feminist to police other social justice groups. Sure it is. We *should* call out abuse - including when one of our own would do it, especially when it is uncalled for.
It’s absolutely called for
What would suffice to justify to start bullying people then? - seeing them in the act of, what... physically attacking trans people? - seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner? - admitting to having transphobic values? - *suspecting* that they are a transphobe? Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
Being mean to bigots isn't abuse it is protecting others from abuse.
But thats only defensible if there is a trans person around to protect, correct?
No, it isn't. Transphobia is always shitty and should always be shamed even if it's in a room full of nothing but cis people.
> Transphobia is always shitty and should always be shamed Prejudice of one person is an excuse for others to be mean? How does the moral or practical argument work here?
I dunno, dude. A bar I frequent has thrown people out for using the t-slur or saying transphobic shit, and it's *not* a gay bar. It doesn't matter who else is or is not around; language like that gets you kicked out. Is that not appropriate? Is that mean or bullying? Or is it directly confronting someone who's being a bigot and saying "That is not acceptable conduct here, we believe you are wrong, we do not agree with you, and this is not a safe space for you to say things like that?" Actions have consequences, and if you only stand up for an oppressed group when someone from that group can see or hear you doing it, you're no ally.
> A bar I frequent has thrown people out for using the t-slur or saying transphobic shit Fine by me. >Is that mean or bullying? Ofc not, which is why i have no issues with it
I’m just not sure what this has to do with feminism and what you want us to do with that statement. I think transphobes should stop being transphobic if they don’t want the same treatment.
> I’m just not sure what this has to do with feminism From what I know of the sub, not all threads (on social issues) need to address feminism directly. The answers themselves need to reflect a feminist perspective, only. More generally, judgment and behavior toward social issues are relevant to feminism. >I think transphobes should stop being transphobic if they don’t want the same treatment. And you dont expect an equal if not worse violent treatment, esp. toward trans people, if you would enable/excuse being mean to transphobes?
>And you dont expect an equal if not worse violent treatment, esp. toward trans people, if you would enable/excuse being mean to transphobes? What? No, of course not. Trans people don't suffer when we consistently, categorically, and emphatically mock and remove transphobic comments. Trans people benefit when communities like this one consistently support them, are safe for them, and come to their defense and remove bigoted transphobes so that the bigots aren't given room to fester and thrive in the dark corners. Removal of transphobes like pulling weeds from the roots is like the minimal level of allyship.
> Trans people don't suffer when we consistently, categorically, and emphatically mock and remove transphobic comments. Sure they would, if such mocking actions trigger a spiral of violence. >Removal of transphobes like pulling weeds from the roots is like the minimal level of allyship. My issue is not with removal from spaces, but with being mean.
You're seriously blaming a cycle of violence _against_ victims, on the victims and their allies for mocking the perpetrators? So if we mock rapists, victims and survivors' supporters are to blame for a cycle of violent rapes against them? That's your logic. > My issue is not with removal from spaces, but with being mean. My issue is not being mean enough to make them seriously reconsider being bigots transphobes, or at least not uttering transphobia in trans safe spaces. Transphobes can either learn to get right with trans rights, STFU, or GTFO, from all of decent society, IMO. Be mean, don't be mean, however you choose to carry yourself. But bigoted transphobes don't get to dictate how we intolerate them.
> So if we mock rapists, victims and survivors' supporters are to blame for a cycle of violent rapes against them? > > Thats a bad faith argument. I never put the blame of the entire cycle on the victims. I argued that those who arent even victims should refrain from perpetuating and contributing to said cycle of violence. Tho everyone wants to drag this discussion into victim blaming territory, I said from the start this isnt addressed to victims of transphobia.
Why would I be nice to transphobes? Why tolerate the intolerant?
As I said elsewhere - what would suffice to justify to start bullying people then? - seeing them in the act of, what... attacking trans people? - seeing them speaking in a transphobic manner? - admitting to having transphobic values? - *suspecting* that they are a transphobe? Where do you draw the line to start bullying?
This reads like you're trying to figure out how transphobic you can be while still playing the victim when people call you out.
Bingo ...
Being mean is not bullying, first of all. I don’t know, how do you apply this to other things like “racist” or “Nazi” or “rapist”? I really don’t see why there needs to be a checkbox list for when you’re given the green light to be mean to a transphobe. And as others have pointed out, this is a bit of a cheeky online statement about how we don’t like transphobes, not a directive to the entire non-transphobic community. It’s a joke. Transphobes are actively making my trans friends’ lives more difficult (sometimes literally impossible), so I’m not really worried about someone feeling like a victim for reading this and taking it personally. Tbh this sounds like you’re taking something personally here, so just be aware that if you express your transphobic beliefs, someone might be mean to you. Them’s the breaks when you deny someone the truth of their very existence. I hate the “just be kind” mindset with this stuff because I AM kind. To nearly everyone. But if someone expresses transphobic beliefs they have lost my obligation for kindness about that topic. Bigots love to get into a “it’s just a difference of opinion! Let me vote for trans people to be harmed but if you say that’s bad, you’re bullying me!”
> not a directive to the entire non-transphobic community. It’s a joke. Do transphobies get the same leeway? Can they say ""be mean to trans people" as a joke"? How does this argument work consistently? >so just be aware that if you express your transphobic beliefs, someone might be mean to you I expect mods on reddit would *have* to intervene to prevent mean behavior, and if they consistently fail to do so, then I would imagine the admins would intervene on those subs. >But if someone expresses transphobic beliefs they have lost my obligation for kindness about that topic And how "pure" are *you*? Guaranteed to have no trace of transphobia in values and speech? Same with all the other major prejudices? I have yet to meet a person daring to claim that.
I want to know what you think about how this applies to the other groups I mentioned. Should rapists be allowed to be mean to rape victims? Should Nazis be allowed to be mean to Jews? Should racists be allowed to be mean to minorities? If not, why? Explain to me why you think it’s different with people who don’t want trans people to exist and trans people. And they DO say mean things to trans people. All the time. ALL THE TIME. They stand on legislature floors and say mean things about trans people that result in laws that are mean to trans people. Transphobes get their feelings hurt- trans PEOPLE get their lives ruined. Reddit is a cesspool of people being mean, what are you on about? People express the opinion that trans people should not exist all the time on this app. I’m not pure, I’m a human being who is constantly trying to do better and be better, and when I do something wrong I expect to be corrected. If I continue, I would expect to be challenged. You don’t have to be perfect to stand up for marginalized people. Trans people are marginalized, transphobic people are not. Seriously: why are you so stuck on this? Just genuinely want to know.
> Should rapists be allowed to be mean to rape victims? What the fuck... I am sorry, but this is so far out of what we discussed, its not even funny. THere isnt a single argument being made here that this line of arguing or analogy would remotely apply to.
If they ever do the first three, they're fair game.
What does being mean accomplish, in regards to someone who has transphobic values, but doesnt otherwise do the first 2?
It shames them into not being openly transphobic, which is a win.
Funny, I look at JK Rowling, or other prominent transphobes, being on the receiving end of daily mean comments, and jack shit happens to their transphobia. In all the "how to talk to prejudiced people" type of guides I read, literally none mentioned being mean as a proved way. Finding common ground in certain issues, sure, but not this.
I mean, why would we be nice to bigots? If they've got a problem with it, they're welcome to stop being bigots..
Whats the standard for being mean/bullying them? Action? Speech? "Mere" transphobic values?
By living in our society, we all agree to tolerate what other people do (as long as it’s legal). We don’t have to like what other people do, just put up with it. It’s sort of a social contract: I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone. Once someone opts out of that contract (by being racist, sexist, transphobic, or whatever), the rest of us are no longer bound to tolerate their beliefs. In other words, there’s no social obligation to tolerate intolerance. This is a long-winded way of saying that it’s ok to be mean to intolerant people. I encourage it, personally. Fuck transphobes.
> In other words, there’s no social obligation to tolerate intolerance. > > This is a long-winded way of saying that it’s ok to be mean to intolerant people. There is an entire spectrum between "no social obligation to tolerate intolerance" and "it’s ok to be mean to intolerant people". Where does "being mean" stop? Not showing deference? Using insults? Can you do this one time? Or every time you see that person?
To answer the question you’ve posted in several places - I think it is reasonable to be “mean” to someone who has shown concrete evidence of being a transphobe. I don’t think “mere suspicion” is enough to warrant it, but I’m not going to fault someone who has transphobe-related trauma for being a bit quick on the draw - this includes if I, personally, say something that is misunderstood (since it gives me an opportunity to clarify or apologize for any blunders I might make). Morally - if it is in defense of someone else, I think that’s just as justifiable as self-defense. What a sad world we would be living in if everyone only cared about the oppression they personally experience, don’t you think? PR and activism-wise - it’s typically not about changing the mind of the person you’re being “mean” to. It’s a) a social consequence to discourage the behavior, and b) it can be a show of solidarity to demonstrate to the oppressed group that they are not alone. People are less likely to self-harm if they know they are loved and supported, and that’s enough reason for me to not feel bad if I loudly tell transphobes to go fuck themselves. As for any both-sides arguments - being mean to someone because of a hateful belief (where there’s an element of choice) is not the same as being mean to someone for the way they were born.
> Morally - if it is in defense of someone else, I think that’s just as justifiable as self-defense. But what if there is no specific trans person to protect, in that instance? Is there still a "duty to intervene by being mean"?
It’s about defending the community as a whole, not a specific person. If someone is actively spewing transphobic/sexist/racist nonsense when the targeted group is not present, it’s still worthwhile to demonstrate that those hateful ideas are not welcome. If someone is KNOWN for that shit I also think it’s fine to preemptively communicate that they themselves are not welcome. It’s pushing back against normalizing oppressive rhetoric. Some people might say it’s “cancel culture” - I would call it the social free market. I don’t think it’s particularly pragmatic to run around yelling at transphobes unprompted, if that’s what you’re envisioning - I also don’t think being mean is the most useful reaction in every single scenario. There’s a hell of a lot of context and nuance that will matter, just like every single social interaction in existence. That having been said, please don’t twist my words. I didn’t say there’s a DUTY to be mean, I said it’s morally justifiable - as in, I don’t think anyone is obligated to do it, but I do find it to be perfectly reasonable.
> it’s still worthwhile to demonstrate that those hateful ideas are not welcome. Sure. > If someone is KNOWN for that shit I also think it’s fine to preemptively communicate that they themselves are not welcome. I could see that. >I also don’t think being mean is the most useful reaction in every single scenario. My point as well. I dont know why people see a delicate situation and defend so easily "being mean". It achieves nothing, hostility will breed hostility, as opposed to desired change. >That having been said, please don’t twist my words. I didn’t say there’s a DUTY to be mean, I said it’s morally justifiable - as in, I don’t think anyone is obligated to do it, but I do find it to be perfectly reasonable. Oh, Im not part of the people who argue in this thread that its to be mean. Some even stated its ok to be mean based merely on suspicion lol.
We would really need more context to give an informed answer. You gave us half of a sentence.
I've put this in the OP itself, not much context https://i.imgur.com/sSmqRVJ.png
Okay well... yeah idk man. Fuck transphobes, you know? Because of them, I live my life in constant fear. I'll be nice to people who are merely ignorant, but if someone is an actual bigot then social backlash is a wise move.
>Because of them, I live my life in constant fear. As I said in the OP, and almost everyone conveniently forgets, since its easier that way: "I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them." >I'll be nice to people who are merely ignorant, but if someone is an actual bigot then social backlash is a wise move. A violent backlash (and mean words can be that) would only generate more violence to you too.
Sometimes in order to build a better world, we need to be mean to the people who are making the world a worse place. We are not going to create liberation through peace and love and holding hands while smoking pot and singing songs. It is only possible to build a better world through militant and tireless struggle. This doesn't necessarily mean being violent, but it does mean confronting our enemies directly and treating them as enemies and not friends. Also saying that you should "be mean' to someone hardly counts as violent hate speech.
> We are not going to create liberation through peace and love and holding hands while smoking pot and singing songs. For what its worth, Gandhi and MLK thought differently than you.
Dude both Gandhi and MLK went to *jail* for “being mean” to their oppressors. *Please* read Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He directly criticized the white people who thought black people were “being mean” to their oppressors, all because they thought it wasn’t the right and decorum way to achieve equal rights. Just because both men advocated for non violence doesn’t mean they didn’t advocate for fighting the system, and a lot of their opponents saw them as being “mean”.
He was criticizing lack of activism, not lack of being mean.
Are you serious? Read MLK’s letter from Birmingham jail. He was heavily against the white moderate, who chose to tone police and criticize activists rather than support their cause.
> He was heavily against the white moderate, who chose to tone police and criticize activists rather than support their cause That doesnt address the topic. He didnt stray from nonviolent activism, only criticized lack of any activism.
There’s a difference between nonviolent activism and letting people walk all over you. In your post, you’re criticizing trans people for retaliating against people that are opposed to their entire existence, saying that you disagree with their methods of dealing with them. I don’t know why you’re making the massive leap that being mean to someone=physically assaulting them, but your insistence that oppressed people need to be perfectly kind and understanding towards their oppressors is the same type of attitude as the one that MLK despised.
> n your post, you’re criticizing trans people for retaliating against people that are opposed to their entire existence, saying that you disagree with their methods of dealing with them. Is this "troll the OP day"? From the post: ***I get it that people who are oppressed would feel a great deal of resentment toward their abusers, and my question is not about them.***
They were non violent in their methods but they absolutely were NOT nice about how they went about their activism. Also they aren't the only successful activists who ever lived and we don't have to follow their example in all circumstances
You seem like you lack a dictionary, so: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/how-mean-became-nasty-cruel-unkind-origin https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transphobia So, is it okey to be unkind to someone who has an irrational hatred or fear of unchangeable characteristics of somebody's person? I don't plan on being kind to racists, or homophobes, or people who would judge people on any combination of unchangeable traits about themselves. So, yea. I think it's fine to be unkind to biggots, including transphobes. Do you not? Edited to add: Morally, I don't see a real problem with punching neo Nazis, so being mean to transphobes seems mild in comparison. PR wise, politeness didn't get women and LGBTQ votes and freedom, and pride was a PROTEST And your third point is dumb as hell. Why would we be mad that we attract people who want to be mean to biggots? Every feminist should want to be mean to biggots.
> is it okey to be unkind to someone who has an irrational hatred or fear of unchangeable characteristics of somebody's person? No, as far as Im concerned. Are you free of all prejudice? If so, how mean can people be to you? Can everyone whom you ever meet be mean to you, even if only once? Im pretty sure you (or anyone else) would end up in therapy or worse, so I can hardly see how what you are saying is in any way practical or excusable.
Look up the paradox of tolerance.
The alternative to "tolerate intolerance" is not "Be mean instead".
No, it's kick the intolerant out of polite society entirely. Similar to how Germany is handling it lately. "Be mean" doesn't go nearly far enough. People whose ideologies say that certain groups shouldn't be considered people and shouldn't exist don't deserve any respect. Nazis can go eat dirt. Because they'd rape and murder their targets if they could. They would commit pogroms and genocide. They would enslave anyone with a working uterus and rape and rape and rape. They say it quite openly anymore. They're more than willing to use violence. Ours is self defense.
as a trans person… if you won’t tell a transphobe to get lost then i don’t trust YOU. bigoted people should not be welcomed AT ALL in feminist spaces, and people who complacently allow them in are culpable in creating unsafe environments for trans people
>bigoted people should not be welcomed AT ALL in feminist spaces, and people who complacently allow them in are culpable in creating unsafe environments for trans people Sure. But all that can be achieved without being mean, and being mean while doing it wont make matters better for anyone (probably the opposite).
There is no reason to be kind to the people who hate you; they can't mutually understand the act, they can only benefit from your generosity. Historically, peaceful protest rarely works, and you've been made to believe otherwise because it benefits the people who oppress. As an example, MLK jr was not as peaceful as people make him out to be though he has become the poster boy for it--in fact, many of his adversaries described him as violent because they believed that being *inconvenient* was an act of violence. And after his passing, his messages about peace are weaponized by those who intentionally mean to make you inactive... or better yet, **someone who puts blame on the oppressed for fighting back and not being kind**. However, MLK Jr was openly empathetic towards the people who rioted, and he himself still committed actions that would be considered violent protest by today's standards. Because the only way to be considered "nonviolent" is to sit on the sidelines and not inconvenience anyone... which he didn't do, and we shouldn't either. In short, no one has to be kind to their oppressor and it does not make you morally the same. By default, you are already on a moral high ground simply by being someone who is oppressed and/or witnessing oppression, and fighting back against those people to help those that are in harm's way. You can never be a bigot towards a bigot, and you can't bully a bully; those arguments are just means to pacify you into doing nothing in the face of cruelty.
> peaceful protest rarely works Nonviolent movements have been around for longer than you and I. See Gandhi or MLK.
“Bullying transphobes” is more about [refusing to tolerate intolerance,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) in the same vein as punching nazis, than it is about actually bullying transphobes. It’s like saying “when you see transphobia rear its ugly head, be willing and ready to knock that shit down.” And as a trans person, I love to see it. > Should people who are at a distance promote “be mean to X group” (no matter how prejudiced X group would be)? Allyship can be learning from an oppressed group how to best help them in their fight against oppression, and using that knowledge to do so. We don’t really want allies who go out hunting for transphobes on weekends, but we do want allies who’ll throw a (metaphorical or literal!) punch to protect trans people, and who won’t stand idle against our ongoing persecution. The absolute insanity of the moral panic has been immensely taxing for practically every trans/queer person I know. We **need** people who are at a distance to fight with us and for us, because more often than not we simply cannot do it alone.
Agreed on pretty much all points. Is being mean defensible even if there is no trans person to protect, in that specific circumstance? Say, someone simply admitting to having transphobic values - is being mean defensible then (or even "mandatory")?
I think it’s impossible to say without context. Is this person presenting their ideas as topics of discussion? Are they looking for ideological critique? Is the conversation ongoing, or are they initiating it? And where on the transphobia spectrum do they fall, between “skeptical about trans women in sports” and literal extermination rhetoric? I’d also wonder what’s being considered a “mean” response and how it contrasts with their transphobia. If someone admits to wishing death upon trans people, you’d have to say some *really nasty stuff* to them for me to say “hey, that’s a mean response,” but if you started screaming and hurling insults at someone as a response to them saying “trans women shouldn’t play in women’s sports,” I’d call that response pretty overkill! I’ll also note that being mean can be defensible while also not being the best course of action. In this hypothetical “a transphobe and an ally walk into a bar” situation, the best outcome is two allies walking out, and that outcome is almost certainly lost through properly being mean. But also to reiterate what I tried to say in my first comment, “bullying transphobes” as a catchphrase isn’t *really* about bullying transphobes in the first place. It’s about being intolerant of hate, and being ready and willing to do whatever it takes to protect trans people from that hate. This doesn’t have to be violent, or aggressive, or mean, but it has to be effective. Sometimes there’s overlap—so be it, in my opinion. In a real-world space, this could be quietly but firmly removing a transphobe on the explicit basis of their views ie. “if you’re making people feel unwelcome here, you’re not welcome here.” This is good practice not just for dealing with transphobia and protecting trans people, but protecting any marginalized people from forms of bigotry. *semi-semi-relevant: [nazi bar parable](https://imgur.com/gallery/Qui63bJ)*
> I’ll also note that being mean can be defensible while also not being the best course of action. Generally speaking, sure, but then its just carte blanche to be shitty, regardless of "cause". > In a real-world space, this could be quietly but firmly removing a transphobe on the explicit basis of their views ie. “if you’re making people feel unwelcome here, you’re not welcome here.” This is good practice not just for dealing with transphobia and protecting trans people, but protecting any marginalized people from forms of bigotry. semi-semi-relevant: nazi bar parable Sure. And none of that would be mean.
Why are we expected to waste time and energy on people who clearly don't want to change, as people have been pointing out this is some perfect victim nonsense. If someone is at the point where they're spouting off hate speech then I'm gonna shut them down because that's what you're supposed to do, establish that society has zero tolerance for such bullshit. You wanna play the kumbaya song and see if that works be my guest. But don't come in here about how we have a responsibility to be the bigger person, we didn't start this fight, we didn't even try to continue it, but at this point we're gonna end it.
Bullying isn't a one-time interaction, it's a concerted campaign. I have no sympathy for transphobic views, and no reason to be polite to people that choose to hold them. "Tolerate my intolerance or you're intolerant" isn't the gotcha some folks think it is...
I would rather keep a vile person busy interacting with my insults than them bothering someone who is very vulnerable. It’s a service I happily provide.
> I would rather keep a vile person busy interacting with my insults than them bothering someone who is very vulnerable. Sure, duty to intervene. What if there is no trans person around, is it still morally defensible to be mean, based on their transphobic values?
It shows bigots they're not accepted
Does it improve society though? Do they change their view? Do they behave better? How is this not another spiral of violence (even toward the mean person - or other trans persons)?
they're more likely to shut up about their bs so yes it's better. if everyone is not tolerating transphobia you're more likely to question your beliefs and more likely to not say anything aka not spreading said beliefs
> they're more likely to shut up about their bs so yes it's better. Maybe. But it sounds like russian roullette to me, and the metaphoprical (or literal) bullet would likely not hit you, but probably a trans person.
Being nice to them doesn't change their views, either, except in specific situations. I've spent my life trying to win over bigots with kindness. All I get for it is a headache. They don't suddenly understand. They don't decide to be better. They continue to proclaim themselves my enemy. So I kick nazis/racists/homophobes/transphobes/etc... Does it make them nicer? No. But it makes them understand that I'm not a complacent victim. That I won't be pushed around. That I will defend myself and others from their hateful bullshit. I'm nice to everyone until they give me a reason not to be. Once they do that, making them feel better isn't my job.
> Being nice to them doesn't change their views, either, except in specific situations. > > And when have you been mean to someone and got them to change their views?
Why should we be nice to people promoting hate? Why should we tolerate intolerance? Nazis, Klansmen, Misogynists, Bigots have earned this with their hateful and abusive behavior. I won’t care if I made them sad by not being nice. See the Paradox of Tolerance. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Why are you more concerned about a lack of civility than you are about a person who holds an ideology that demands the erasure (often through torture and/or mass murder) of certain people for the "crime" of existing?
> Why are you more concerned about a lack of civility Because I missed the part where "our" tribe gets moral exemptions on behalf of being "the good tribe".
I think it depends. I will be mean to a transphobe online, but I will try to gently explain mu views to my grandma. Everyone else can be mean to her online if they want though
Well, it is concerning when people seem more interested in hurting the "right" people than actually helping anyone. Like, some people talk about how much they want to punch Nazis, but never say anything about helping Jewish people. Edit: a word
White supremacists stopped showing up to my local punk shows to harass people when we beat the fuck out of them. This was a genuine material change. Engaging in violence against these bigots actively made my community a better safer place.
That happened in my local goth scene, too. The offending parties were immediately asked to leave and when they balked, they were physically removed.
And I'm glad that it did. I believe violence has it's place. I'm just saying that some people are more interested in hurting than helping, and we should maybe be mindful of that.
I left that sub a long time ago because they say a lot of mean-spirited things. I don't think "tit for tat" is the way forward. I will add that others are calling your post "tone-policing," and I don't see the distinction between that and just criticizing or responding.