Fourth Wave Feminism

[FortyTwo]

I don't buy it. Yes, I know the whole argument of structural harassment, but it seems to me that it all boils down to one form of harassment being rarer than the other. It doesn't make it an act of harassment less wrong just because the target is rarer, or that it is the "reverse" of other harassment.

Its wrong to judge people based on the gender identity and biological identity. Maybe it's time to grow up and realize that no matter who you are, you shouldn't start making assumptions of people based on their gender identity and biological gender.

And if that isn't enough of a reason, then why not this selfish reason - encourage hatred, in either direction, between trans and cis, does not and can not improve society.

The second everyone is actually, functionally equal in society, I will understand this logic. Until then, there are people with privilege and people without privilege and the former group picking on the latter group will always be more harmful than the reverse.

Hatred shouldn't be encouraged, but these actions are not equal and that's the end of it.

 

[FortyTwo]

The fact is, many/most of us have one or more characteristics that are different from what is the expected default position (and a characteristic, such as being transsexual/transgender, which applies to .25% to 1% of the population, is not the expected default position), and we don't make up specific terms to describe the persons who don't happen to share that unusual characteristic. I used albinism as an example earlier. Depression, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders (OMG! How uncouth to even call it a disorder!) are other characteristics, as is a cleft lip, nearsightedness, farsightedness, dwarfism, eyes of two different colors, alopecia - the list goes on and on. Some of these characteristics don't negatively affect how a person with the characteristic is treated, but many do. People are hounded, taunted, bullied, discriminated against and even killed because of some of these characteristics.

Is there something wrong and abnormal about having any one of these characteristics? I don't think so, and I sincerely hope that those of you who think that it's important to have a term to describe all the people who aren't transgendered in order to avoid any such implication start getting cracking to come up with new terms to describe the people who don't happen to have a particular characteristic.

What you're saying mostly concerns ableism, which is an entirely different fight with its own huge issues and oh boy I'm not even going to try to get into that right now.

To be short about it, yes, there are probably medical terms to describe people who aren't affected by certain conditions - the "expected default" has words that apply to it, too, and it wouldn't be inappropriate to use them in the context of those individual conditions.

I don't think that "cis", used to describe people who aren't trans, is used (or even known by) most of the non-trans population; its use within the non-trans population seems to be largely confined to people who pride themselves on being on the cutting edge of sexual and gender political correctness.

What's the harm in that, though? People are educating themselves about the terms being used in these communities and actively recognizing their use as legitimate and appropriate. I don't see anything wrong with people priding themselves on that. I mean, in any group you're going to have the obnoxious and self-righteous individuals who think they're the end-all be-all, but these terms have appropriate contexts and appropriate uses that aren't confined to those groups, and recognizing them isn't a problem in itself.

 

[das_nut]

The second everyone is actually, functionally equal in society, I will understand this logic. Until then, there are people with privilege and people without privilege and the former group picking on the latter group will always be more harmful than the reverse.

Hatred shouldn't be encouraged, but these actions are not equal and that's the end of it.

Here's my problem with this - you're telling me that you can tell how someone's life is going just by how their gender identity matches or doesn't match their biological gender. You are telling me that you can judge who was more wronged based on nothing more than their cis or trans status.

 

[FortyTwo]

Here's my problem with this - you're telling me that you can tell how someone's life is going just by how their gender identity matches or doesn't match their biological gender. You are telling me that you can judge who was more wronged based on nothing more than their cis or trans status.

No, I'm saying that, in a given situation of negative interaction between someone who is cis and someone who is trans*, it is far more likely for the cis person to be harassing the trans* person, and on top of that it is more likely that a trans* person will come to harm because of it.

If we were talking about individual situations here then yes, sure, there's probably been a time when a trans* person has harassed a cis person in which actual physical or emotional harm has come of it. But there have been a lot of individual situations that aren't indicative of an overall trend in the slightest. This is on a societal scale. Even if cisphobia was a concrete, tangible thing, it still wouldn't be nearly as harmful or terrifying of a force as transphobia.

 

[das_nut]

No, I'm saying that, in a given situation of negative interaction between someone who is cis and someone who is trans*, it is far more likely for the cis person to be harassing the trans* person, and on top of that it is more likely that a trans* person will come to harm because of it.

I agree with this. But each individual act is still harassment.

If we were talking about individual situations here then yes, sure, there's probably been a time when a trans* person has harassed a cis person in which actual physical or emotional harm has come of it. But there have been a lot of individual situations that aren't indicative of an overall trend in the slightest. This is on a societal scale. Even if cisphobia was a concrete, tangible thing, it still wouldn't be nearly as harmful or terrifying of a force as transphobia.

You really don't want to apply this logic to other situtaions, trust me on this. It starts to sound very bad.

 

[FortyTwo]

I agree with this. But each individual act is still harassment.

Yes, someone from an underprivileged group can be an ******* to someone from a privileged group. But that's all it is, being an *******.

You really don't want to apply this logic to other situtaions, trust me on this. It starts to sound very bad.

Give me an example, one that doesn't involve a person with privilege attacking someone without it.

 

[das_nut]

Yes, someone from an underprivileged group can be an ******* to someone from a privileged group. But that's all it is, being an *******.

All of it is being an *******.

Give me an example, one that doesn't involve a person with privilege attacking someone without it.

Well that's a weird, rather oddly specific exception you're carving out, it makes me wonder about what logic you're applying here. Especially since most of us live rather privileged lives compared to some of the world, cis and trans included.

But lets work with it anyways:

How about: "Sinhalese individuals committing acts of harassment against the Tamil individuals is less harmful than Tamil individuals committing acts of harassment against Sinhalese individuals"?

Would you agree or disagree? If you think that the Sinhalese are the privileged ones and the Tamils are not, feel free to flip the two around.

 

[FortyTwo]

Well that's a weird, rather oddly specific exception you're carving out, it makes me wonder about what logic you're applying here. Especially since most of us live rather privileged lives compared to some of the world, cis and trans included.

But lets work with it anyways:

How about: "Sinhalese individuals committing acts of harassment against the Tamil individuals is less harmful than Tamil individuals committing acts of harassment against Sinhalese individuals"?

Would you agree or disagree? If you think that the Sinhalese are the privileged ones and the Tamils are not, feel free to flip the two around.

I don't know enough about Sri Lankan racial tensions to answer this with any authority or accuracy... sorry. If you want to consider that a win on your side, you can.

 

[das_nut]

I don't know enough about Sri Lankan racial tensions to answer this with any authority or accuracy... sorry. If you want to consider that a win on your side, you can.

How about slurs by Thai Muslims against Thai Buddists?

If you're not familiar with that, here's some background.

And once again, if you think the Muslims have privilege and the Buddhists do not, feel free to flip the two groups around.

 

[FortyTwo]

How about slurs by Thai Muslims against Thai Buddists?

If you're not familiar with that, here's some background.

And once again, if you think the Muslims have privilege and the Buddhists do not, feel free to flip the two groups around.

Okay, when referring to clashing religious groups that have arguably equal footing, I will focus more on single situations than on the cultural impact as a whole.

 

[das_nut]

Okay, when referring to clashing religious groups that have arguably equal footing, I will focus more on single situations than on the cultural impact as a whole.

Well, religious, ethnic, and cultural. The large Thai Buddhist majority and small Thai Muslim minority are split on more than just religious tradition.

But lets see, since you rule out clashes between a religious majority and a religious minority, lets find a situation where someone without privilege insults someone with privilege and the situation ends up sounding very badly.

Would you consider the writings of a radical feminist calling for the elimination of the male sex to be an unprivileged person committing slurs on a privileged group?

 

[FortyTwo]

Well, religious, ethnic, and cultural. The large Thai Buddhist majority and small Thai Muslim minority are split on more than just religious tradition.

But lets see, since you rule out clashes between a religious majority and a religious minority, lets find a situation where someone without privilege insults someone with privilege and the situation ends up sounding very badly.

Would you consider the writings of a radical feminist calling for the elimination of the male sex to be an unprivileged person committing slurs on a privileged group?

I have no time for radfems or TERFs.

 

[das_nut]

I have no time for radfems or TERFs.

TERFs are amazingly crazy, but I think they prove part of the point I'm trying to make.

To dislike sexism and believe it is a harmful force is a very legitimate viewpoint. But TERFs confuse a dislike of sexism with a dislike of the male gender. Their feelings towards the male gender grows into such a disgusting thing that they negate the feelings of other disadvantaged groups such as the transgendered.

Er, an aside for everyone else: If you don't know what a TERF is, it stands for a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. They tend to consider transsexuals' "real" gender as their biological gender, and thus believe that female-to-male transsexuals are women who are traitors, while male-to-female transsexuals are men trying to invalidate "real" women.
​

The grouping of people based on just one attribute, and assuming they are all the same, and then justifying hatred of that group based on one action tends to lead to very bad things.

 

[FortyTwo]

TERFs are amazingly crazy, but I think they prove part of the point I'm trying to make.

To dislike sexism and believe it is a harmful force is a very legitimate viewpoint. But TERFs confuse a dislike of sexism with a dislike of the male gender. Their feelings towards the male gender grows into such a disgusting thing that they negate the feelings of other disadvantaged groups such as the transgendered.

Er, an aside for everyone else: If you don't know what a TERF is, it stands for a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. They tend to consider transsexuals' "real" gender as their biological gender, and thus believe that female-to-male transsexuals are women who are traitors, while male-to-female transsexuals are men trying to invalidate "real" women.
​

The grouping of people based on just one attribute, and assuming they are all the same, and then justifying hatred of that group based on one action tends to lead to very bad things.

As a real quick aside, FYI, not trying to be annoying or pretentious or anything, but "transsexual" is outdated and if you throw that around a lot you might offend someone. Nowadays it's less about the physical transition and more about gender identity. Same goes for "transgendered" as opposed to "transgender," as the first implies that someone has to "become" trans* rather than just having been born that way. Relatively minor things that can seem very major to someone who is actually going through it.

Anyways... I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. TERFs are bad? Hate is bad? I agree with both those things. But my original point, that someone with privilege being an *** to someone without it, is objectively worse than the reverse situation, still stands.

 

[das_nut]

Anyways... I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. TERFs are bad? Hate is bad? I agree with both those things. But my original point, that someone with privilege being an *** to someone without it, is objectively worse than the reverse situation, still stands.

So, okay, lets say a black man calls a white woman a sexist slur. Or, if you believe that black men are more privileged than white women, have the white woman call him a racist slur.

One is objectively worse than the other?

 

[FortyTwo]

So, okay, lets say a black man calls a white woman a sexist slur. Or, if you believe that black men are more privileged than white women, have the white woman call him a racist slur.

One is objectively worse than the other?

Depends on the area of privilege we're examining. In both cases the one using the slur is wrong, but if the roles were reversed, neither would be as harmful.

Black people can be sexist, women can be racist. Black people don't have privilege because they're black, and women don't have privilege because they're women. But they can overstep into areas they have privilege in and then it's considered offensive.

 

[Clueless Git]

Nothing a woman does to a man can constitute harassment.

Nothing a black person does to a white person can constitute harassment.

The Queen of England isn't privileged because she's female.

The Queen of England is privileged because she's white.

Any male member of a privileged black group can't be privileged because they're black.

Any male member of an unprivileged black or white group can't be unprivileged because they're male.

Any female member of a privileged black group can't be privileged because they're both black and female.


Making sense out of that would be as futile as trying to catch smoke in a net.

 

[kazyeeqen]

Making sense out of that would be as futile as trying to catch smoke in a net.

^^I agree, and I've always felt that way about your posts.

 

[Clueless Git]

^^I agree, and I've always felt that way about your posts.

It's hard to see exactly what house pets are thinking ...

By the funny looks she gives me sometimes, though, I suspect that my cat feels much the same way.

 

[das_nut]

Depends on the area of privilege we're examining. In both cases the one using the slur is wrong, but if the roles were reversed, neither would be as harmful.

But according to you, wouldn't the slur be less wrong for one or another, depending on their relative privilege?

Come on, stick to your guns.