Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazz
It's hard because certain things have been placed off limits for discussion by trans/gender ideologues.
Trans/gender canon dictates there are only two options: transphobe or transphile (anything in between qualifies for the former).... Questioning or challenging trans/gender ideology or behavior without genuflecting, toe dancing, mincing words or straddling gets you pegged a transphobe (hater/bigot). Your friend A, CherylNYC, must not have genuflected deep enough.
I could argue that my questioning, even criticizing, trans/gender ideology/behavior is not motivated by hate, but arguing sacred canon with ideologues, or fundamentalists, is never fruitful. They may preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner”, but they rarely practice it…. More importantly, arguing would be me lending credence to a false accusation. A false accusation that is typically used by trans/gender ideologues to derail conversations and discredit lesbians/Feminists who do not embrace trans/gender ideology. So, I’ll just shrug and say: “Your” canon hurts women who share my sensibilities. That doesn’t automatically qualify “you” as a lesbianphobe in my book, but I could be persuaded.
Part of the reason this thread was created – at least so I was led to believe – was because many lesbians feel minimized, marginalized, invisiblized and their identities cannibalized. It may hurt to hear that, it may offend your ideological sensibilities. It may make you want to kick me to the curb - you can do that, you have the power - but, in so doing, you’re ignoring the perennial elephant in the room. The one that is at the core of the divisiveness in the LGBTQ community of which there is much.
How can anyone expect to have a meaningful, reality based conversation about Lesbian Pride when only one ideology is allowed to be voiced? (A nod to Heart who is, in her way, trying to bridge the ideological divide.)
What do some of you think is really at the core of the BV debacle? Bad nomenclature? Bad judgment? A failed attempt at being all inclusive? Good intentions gone awry?
It's about : I D E O L O G Y
You can debate BV's nonprofit status and financial statements till the cows do what they do, but some of us view the BV hierarchy as staging an ideological takeover. The next, inevitable slip, slide down the trans/gender ideological continuum; a trip many of us do not want to take. Based on the conversations I’ve been having with other lesbians about this thread, many see it as I do - one more exercise (perhaps unconscious, maybe and sometimes) in imposing trans/gender ideology on everyone in the community.
This is what it comes down to…. Is questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior off the table? If not, who gets to set the parameters of that discussion - trans/gender ideologues? If the answer is a dogma laden, qualified “YES”, then the L in the LGBTQ panoply is no longer inclusive or meaningful. Let's just be honest and reality based about it.
 |
Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.
Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.
Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.
I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?
The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.
I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.
If my response is in any way threatening or violates the TOS for the site, I welcome the mods to contact me about it so that i may modify my behavior accordingly.