I’m often skeptical of the idea of intersectionality. Trying to lump people who are black, queer, atheist, immigrants, feminists, etc. in one big group and have them fight for each other’s rights isn’t going to work super well, and any division can just detail the whole effort.
But the T in LGBT has been there since the very early days of the gay rights movement. Trans people were not just there at Stonewall, they were the crux of the riots, for fuck’s sake! I grew up when people were literally trying to erase gay people from existence - the whole “is it a choice vs. are you born gay?” debate, which was both insulting and not important (oh, if it’s a choice, then it’s fine for you to oppress someone?) was erasure. Gay-erasure was a thing, everyone. Bi-erasure has been a thing for ages! Now I see the same thing happening to trans folks, and it’s like a bunch of people are either forgetting it or willfully ignoring history.
It’s not even just about what this comic is saying, i.e., if you let them come for people who are trans, then soon they’ll come for you. Even if I knew 100% gay marriage was not under threat AT ALL, I’d still support the trans community, because it’s not a tit-for-tat when someone’s existence is at stake! Sure, we need to convince the public, sure it’s hard and sure, there are some small (VERY small in terms of numbers) issues like trans athletes and regretful transitioners that maybe need some working through or compromises, just as gay marriage had to start with civil unions before the public accepted “marriage.” But it’s worth fighting for!
Okay, rant over, especially with me knowing Lemmy is fine with trans folks, y’all are good peeps, I just felt angry about this today.
An important difference with this though is that standards of care for transitioning has existed for decades to prevent people from being misdiagnosed as transgender. As well as trans women playing sports. It’s only in recent times that a hyper focus has been placed on a minority of a minority trans population for political gain. It’s effective political messaging for people who only recently became aware of trans people living their lives, unaware that this isn’t new. Going from civil unions to gay marriage is progress, going from marriage to civil unions is backtracking on established norms.
Someone who is below average on her team, transitioned as a teenager, had surgery, is 5 ft 2 and has low testosterone only 1/4 of most women is not at any kind of unfair advantage, and this can be in a non contact sport. The blanket ban is a ban across an entire category of women accusing them of advantages that many do not have. It makes more sense to do as it has been done for decades and follow guidelines that assess the individual player for unfair advantages than to ban everyone across an entire demographic.
If someone who isn’t trans gets trans healthcare, they are effectively now trans, with gender dysphoria. They will be given access to gender affirming care to make them a better fit back to their original sex, because it is an effective treatment. However, most people who receive trans healthcare are in fact trans. It’s not a fast or easy process either, this is something that takes years navigating the healthcare system, letting HRT take affect, changing documents, getting referral letters, electrolysis, going to court for legal changes, surgery, etc.
I know several who still can’t afford surgery decades later who desperately need it. I know someone who died fighting for insurance coverage. There is a way bigger concern of people not having access to healthcare than people who don’t need it transitioning despite all of that. Continuing to periodically reevaluate the standards of care to minimize people being misdiagnosed makes the most sense, not banning healthcare for those whose doctors say it is medically necessary.
![Based Chameleon [Rule]](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/148ef42f-4a58-4cd2-8f42-f94b9f83b7e8.webp){kind=link}
I’m often skeptical of the idea of intersectionality. Trying to lump people who are black, queer, atheist, immigrants, feminists, etc. in one big group and have them fight for each other’s rights isn’t going to work super well, and any division can just detail the whole effort.
But the T in LGBT has been there since the very early days of the gay rights movement. Trans people were not just there at Stonewall, they were the crux of the riots, for fuck’s sake! I grew up when people were literally trying to erase gay people from existence - the whole “is it a choice vs. are you born gay?” debate, which was both insulting and not important (oh, if it’s a choice, then it’s fine for you to oppress someone?) was erasure. Gay-erasure was a thing, everyone. Bi-erasure has been a thing for ages! Now I see the same thing happening to trans folks, and it’s like a bunch of people are either forgetting it or willfully ignoring history.
It’s not even just about what this comic is saying, i.e., if you let them come for people who are trans, then soon they’ll come for you. Even if I knew 100% gay marriage was not under threat AT ALL, I’d still support the trans community, because it’s not a tit-for-tat when someone’s existence is at stake! Sure, we need to convince the public, sure it’s hard and sure, there are some small (VERY small in terms of numbers) issues like trans athletes and regretful transitioners that maybe need some working through or compromises, just as gay marriage had to start with civil unions before the public accepted “marriage.” But it’s worth fighting for!
Okay, rant over, especially with me knowing Lemmy is fine with trans folks, y’all are good peeps, I just felt angry about this today.
An important difference with this though is that standards of care for transitioning has existed for decades to prevent people from being misdiagnosed as transgender. As well as trans women playing sports. It’s only in recent times that a hyper focus has been placed on a minority of a minority trans population for political gain. It’s effective political messaging for people who only recently became aware of trans people living their lives, unaware that this isn’t new. Going from civil unions to gay marriage is progress, going from marriage to civil unions is backtracking on established norms.
Someone who is below average on her team, transitioned as a teenager, had surgery, is 5 ft 2 and has low testosterone only 1/4 of most women is not at any kind of unfair advantage, and this can be in a non contact sport. The blanket ban is a ban across an entire category of women accusing them of advantages that many do not have. It makes more sense to do as it has been done for decades and follow guidelines that assess the individual player for unfair advantages than to ban everyone across an entire demographic.
If someone who isn’t trans gets trans healthcare, they are effectively now trans, with gender dysphoria. They will be given access to gender affirming care to make them a better fit back to their original sex, because it is an effective treatment. However, most people who receive trans healthcare are in fact trans. It’s not a fast or easy process either, this is something that takes years navigating the healthcare system, letting HRT take affect, changing documents, getting referral letters, electrolysis, going to court for legal changes, surgery, etc.
I know several who still can’t afford surgery decades later who desperately need it. I know someone who died fighting for insurance coverage. There is a way bigger concern of people not having access to healthcare than people who don’t need it transitioning despite all of that. Continuing to periodically reevaluate the standards of care to minimize people being misdiagnosed makes the most sense, not banning healthcare for those whose doctors say it is medically necessary.
I do think their point is to not give an inch when fighting for inclusivity
This is how I read the post and why I shared it
Don’t give an inch, they’ll take a mile
that is their goal, that’s the reason we need intersectionality, divided we get the boot