How to think about trans people

Yeah. Genitalia ideas are... weird. I think they're very strongly tied to cis hetero patriarchal norms.

The "surprise penis" vs "surprise vagina" difference is parallel to the "two men together is disgusting" vs "two women together is hottttt" thing. A surprise vagina is no big deal, because you can have as many vaginas as you want without being gay. But as soon as you have two penises in a room together, that's gay. Real men want to see all the vaginas and none of the penises. etc. And, this being a patriarchal society, what "real men" want is the rule.

The sexual predator thing also connects to these ideas in complicated ways. The "virgin/whore" dichotomy that's commonly applied to women is applied to trans women, only more so. Why more so? Well, because our "expectation" as a society is that men (often conflated with having a penis) are the aggressors in sex. So tie together the "well, sexy women are predatory" from the virgin/whore thing and the "people with penises are predatory" from the men-are-supposed-to-want-sex thing, and you can see where the idea comes from that a sexy woman with a penis must be the most predatory sex fiend ever.

I think those ideas: "man = aggressor", "man = penis", "penis = aggressor" together hold the key. The transphobic (and homophobic as well) disgusted reaction to the presence of a penis is the reaction to the idea that a guy might be in a relationship where he was not the aggressor, and therefore where he was not acting as a man. The fear that trans women are going to run around raping people in female gendered spaces (restrooms, etc.) is related to the idea that the trans woman is automatically an aggressor because she has (or had at some point) a penis. And I think that attitude towards penises is related to the "cotton ceiling" transphobia as well—that because of the presence of a penis, there's automatically this power disparity between the parties. (Ignoring that a cis woman can be super ripped and a trans woman can be super weak, or vice versa. And ignoring the fact that there [em]are[/em] issues of discriminatory behavior around patriarchal lines between more- and less-masculine-presenting lesbians, despite the fact that nobody involved has a penis.)

Kyriarchy is really damned complicated.

Here's a twitlonger by the ever-excellent Natalie Reed in response to a TERFy lesbian, about penises and sexedness:

'm feeling a bit saucy today, so Imma walk y'all through it:

When considering the question of how definitively "sexed" the penis is, it's not sufficient to simply say it's "common sense" or "just a scientific fact". This doesn't fly anymore than someone providing "common sense" or "just a scientific fact" for their belief that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. We have to look at whys.

...

First: great post, Hyp. I'm gonna nit pick here, but please don't let that insinuate I disagree with your line of thought. I think the male = penis = agressor idea is crucial to understanding a lot of stuff.

Hypatian wrote:

The transphobic (and homophobic as well) disgusted reaction to the presence of a penis is the reaction to the idea that a guy might be in a relationship where he was not the aggressor, and therefore where he was not acting as a man. The fear that trans women are going to run around raping people in female gendered spaces (restrooms, etc.) is related to the idea that the trans woman is automatically an aggressor because she has (or had at some point) a penis. And I think that attitude towards penises is related to the "cotton ceiling" transphobia as well—that because of the presence of a penis, there's automatically this power disparity between the parties

I don't disagree with any of this, but it seems to only paint a partial picture. There are people who are disgusted by the penis for a whole multitude of reasons; not all of them are transphobic or homophobic. A straight man dealing with memories of molestation may develop hatred for the penis that in no way stem from transphobic nor homophobic thoughts, but rather an expression of repressed fear and humiliation. I suspect there are countless examples where this specific appendage represents a whole lot of terrible memories for people (especially groups traditionally oppressed in a patriarchy), and I hesitate to reduce all of that down to trans/homophobia.

Take, for example, the post from Natalie Reed above. That comparison seems awfully...weak. I mean sure, the biological/physical argument against penis = male is fine. Reed doesn't point out that the level of incidence where this happens is incredibly rare overall, but I won't fault her that for the same reason I don't fault people for not pointing out the the actual incidence of homosexuality among humans is incredibly rare. My problem is that it's ignoring the cultural baggage dumped at the doorstep of every person considering a sexual partner with someone who -- surprise -- is carrying what can sometimes be described as an instrument of terror. I mean this quite literally -- the penis is a symbol of one of the most terrifying weapons of war and it's unfair, IMO, to chalk this type of disgust with such an appendage up to transphobia.

Luckily, Reed agrees with me:

Natalie Reed wrote:

Personally, I would NEVER want to sleep with someone who's disgusted, or uninterested, in my body to that degree...

(snip!)I mean, I guess there probably ARE some really awful, entitled, selfish trans women who have chalked every single rejection they've ever had up to "transphobia" when there were quite understandable reasons they got turned down.

(there's lots more good stuff in this article. Everyone go read it.

But the point I think Reed is missing is that she's looking at this backward. It's not male = penis. It's penis = bad, in that the penis is the symbol for everything culturally suffocating about this reality. Is that fair to women with penises? Hell no it's not, and I completely agree with Reed that this is a tiny facet of marginalization, because as we've all agreed with before, it's not cool to expect sex.

Anyway I'm not sure why I'm defending with such veracity the right for people to hate penises. No idea why it's struck me as important. Reed's article was excellent, overall, and I appreciate you sharing it.

Wow Hyp, I'm sad that you detect so much stuff that (to me) seems inoffensive as offensive. It probably doesn't help, but I think most of those costumes aren't like a personal attack on you, just making fun of stereotypes, I'm sure if they knew you as a person I'm sure they'd like you (Or respect you at least). Sometimes I wonder if you think too much about this stuff and maybe your mind leads you towards negative perceptions of your trans identity?

I suspect the whole issue is treated "casually" because most people just have never even met a transexual or know anything about how you think (or could even imagine that it was offensive). f*ck, I thought just acknowledging that you existed (you = the transgender population) was an improvement in the issue, but I guess not.

BTW, what do you think about the whole "Man dressing as woman" comedy thing? It's a classic, since Monty Python and probably earlier, no? Why is it funny?

Also, as a straight dude or cis or whatever (this may be too simple for you) I thought the "Projectile vomit when encountering a girl with a penis" was because their genitals are usually very umm weird looking? From hormone treatments and all that? Just all my huhhh research on the net about trans dudes, their penis never looks "right" + the shock + being a disposable scene in a crappy comedy = vomit. It's kind of a cheap laugh, that's all, no? Like the mexican guys smoking marihuana or being mariachis. I wonder if it's about that, or if that's a too simple way to look at it and it really is that "penis anger" thing.

I'm curious, what do you think about Pavel Petel? (NSFW sample image: http://i.imgur.com/7cN479A.jpg )

The whole penis-is-bad thing is straight up institutionalized homophobia. Guys aren't allowed to touch another penis, period. If you do, you must immediately react with sufficient horror and outrage so that nobody thinks you enjoyed or appreciated or even felt totally neutral about said touching. Anything less than that, and folk might think you're gay (which is totally fine), which is obviously horrific.

Ergo, a surprise penis demands a shocked/disdainful/horrified/disgusted response, all the moreso because your hand was going there on purpose.

Seth wrote:

Anyway I'm not sure why I'm defending with such veracity the right for people to hate penises. No idea why it's struck me as important. Reed's article was excellent, overall, and I appreciate you sharing it.

*nod* I think the key thing I'm trying to emphasize is that there's a lot of interconnected stuff going on here.

You're right that there are other reasons to not like penises (and honestly, I've never met anyone who didn't think the things are weird looking). But most people who react reflexively aren't doing it because of trauma from a personal experience. Rather, most people react because of the culture in which we're steeped. And the trouble with that is that it doesn't stop at the boundaries of individuals--it forms whole interconnected sets of ideas and rationalizations that fit in as part of the patriarchal framework of oppression.

As I've said before, and as Reed noted, you pretty much never meet a trans woman who feels [em]entitled[/em] to being attractive to cis lesbian women. Rather, the whole thing about the cotton ceiling was the system which excludes trans women. It's the system that leads to trans women being rejected for being trans before any question of what kind of genitalia they have even comes up in the discussion. And it's the system that excludes straight trans women in the same ways.

And the dances around "penis = male" in that scenario... mostly they come from attempts to rationalize why it's OK to exclude trans women. It's the same thing that's at the foundation of most essentialist models of man vs woman, male vs female, masculine vs feminine, however you want to chop it up: People start with the assumption that trans* people should be excluded from the "normal" definition, and then look for a definition that fits, and when one such definition is knocked down, they move on to the next. (Genitalia is no good? OK, how about chromosomes. Chromosomes don't work? Well, how about socialization?)

It's totally OK not to like penises. A lot of trans women don't like having them. Some are OK with having them. Some are on the fence, but don't dislike having them enough to go through major surgery to deal with the problem. *shrug* It's all the follow-on stuff that causes dismay.

Mex wrote:

Wow Hyp, I'm sad that you detect so much stuff that (to me) seems inoffensive as offensive. It probably doesn't help, but I think most of those costumes aren't like a personal attack on you, just making fun of stereotypes, I'm sure if they knew you as a person I'm sure they'd like you (Or respect you at least). Sometimes I wonder if you think too much about this stuff and maybe your mind leads you towards negative perceptions of your trans identity?

I suspect the whole issue is treated "casually" because most people just have never even met a transexual or know anything about how you think (or could even imagine that it was offensive). f*ck, I thought just acknowledging that you existed (you = the transgender population) was an improvement in the issue, but I guess not.

First, note: I didn't see it as a personal attack on me. Re-read what I wrote before. Also, it wasn't the photo that was a problem.

The trouble is not that stuff is intended to be hurtful. The trouble is that it hurts anyway. You have to remember that as most trans women are growing up, these culturally embedded ideas of transsexuals are basically all we have to go on. That's getting better, with role models like Janet Mock out there tearing up the place... but for people of my generation, at least, pretty much all you got were Jerry Springer, Silence of the Lambs, The Crying Game, Ace Ventura, etc. And honestly, making fun of guys in dresses is still a staple of comedy to this day.

The "sexy X" costumes are a problem feminism-wise not because they're silly stereotypes, but because they've become ubiquitous. That's what the sexy Poe costume was mocking. They're not particularly directed at trans people, they're directed at women. And just like it's unpleasant to have most female characters in video games be presented as sexed-up eye candy for men, it's off-putting to see store shelves stocked with Halloween costumes clearly designed to present the wearer as sexed-up eye candy for men.

Anyway, getting back to trans* issues: acknowledging that trans* people exist is good. But it's a problem when we're still used as the punchline for jokes by pretty much [em]every comedian[/em]. (Seriously. I love Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart... but they have both gone to that well regularly.) And it's a problem when the majority of serious [em]positive[/em] portrayals of trans women still feel the need for the obligatory "reaction" scene. (Which, more often than not, still includes vomiting.)

As far as being not being aimed at me: Just because something is intended to hurt [em]doesn't mean it doesn't hurt[/em]. Just because something is based on established cultural stereotypes [em]doesn't mean those stereotypes aren't harmful[/em].

The reason that I said anything at all was that I wanted people to understand that these stereotypes [em]do[/em] hurt people, even when they're not aimed directly at us. They still poke at those tender spots, those parts of us that "know" (because we were raised that way, just like everybody else) that to be transgender is to be a freak. To be a pervert. To be pitiable. They still hit me right in that place that kept me closeted and hurting for twenty years of my life--because it's what I learned from hearing precisely those sorts of things that made me hide away in the first place.

When I saw the sexy Poe photo, I thought it was cool, and then I thought it was a bit unfortunate that "sexy" apparently meant "dressing like a woman", rather than having a sexy guy wearing a sexy guy outfit. I didn't think it was unfortunate for trans* reasons, I thought it was unfortunate for feminist reasons.

What made me sad for trans* reasons was that seeing a guy wearing a skirt so quickly got people onto the track of "you thought it was a girl, but there's a penis under there!" It's not that it was some sort of slur, it's just unfortunate that this is where society trains our minds to go.

Mex wrote:

BTW, what do you think about the whole "Man dressing as woman" comedy thing? It's a classic, since Monty Python and probably earlier, no? Why is it funny?

To be honest: It's a classic that is often [em]super offensive[/em]. This is different from drag, or from performers cross-dressing to fill roles or to bend genders, or from people who dress in gender-non-conforming ways to tear down gender, or anything like that. This is often comedy absolutely based around the idea that "a man in a dress is to be mocked". This is pretty comparable to blackface (to connect to a recent big story on the interwebs.)

There are acts that did this but not in quite the same way--think "the church lady"--and became long-time running gags in which the cross performance was only a small part. They still banked at their beginning on the fact that they'd get a laugh just from having a man portraying a woman, and that's a problem. But, they're mostly humorous for other reasons. And it's not these that I'm talking about.

No, the ones that are really offensive are the ones where the whole point of the gag is cross-dressing. A man in a dress is the setup. A man in a dress is the running gag. A man in a dress is the punchline. That's just awful.

As a counter-illustration, the oglaf strip "puzzle{sexist slur}" (wildly NSFW webcomic, in case it wasn't obvious) is something that every trans woman I've known who has seen it thought was absolutely f*cking hilarious. Why do we like it? Because a woman with a dick isn't the punchline, it's the setup. Because the punchline isn't "LOL, chicks with dicks are funny." Because everyone pictured takes it totally in stride. The woman with the "puzzle vagina" reacts just like every other woman in oglaf who meets "The Masculine Mystique": she's unimpressed.

Mex wrote:

Also, as a straight dude or cis or whatever (this may be too simple for you) I thought the "Projectile vomit when encountering a girl with a penis" was because their genitals are usually very umm weird looking? From hormone treatments and all that? Just all my huhhh research on the net about trans dudes, their penis never looks "right" + the shock + being a disposable scene in a crappy comedy = vomit. It's kind of a cheap laugh, that's all, no? Like the mexican guys smoking marihuana or being mariachis. I wonder if it's about that, or if that's a too simple way to look at it and it really is that "penis anger" thing.

Hormone therapy doesn't particularly do anything. All guys' penises look weird, honestly. HRT will generally reduce the size of the penis slightly (maybe 10%), and reduce the size of the testicles a fair amount. It results in an inability to achieve an erection, and in sterility. Most trans women will eventually have at least an orchiectomy to have their testicles removed, because that takes away the need to take androgen blockers, which are hard on the liver. Trans female performers in porn who achieve an erection are almost certainly off their hormones while they work to make money, or in more recent times using something like viagra to maintain an erection.

But there's nothing particularly "weird looking" about trans women's genitalia, no matter what surgeries they've had. Penis, vagina, whatever, they look just about like anybody else's.

Anyway, as I noted above, the problem is the "cheap laugh". And yes, it's also a problem when every Mexican guy you see on mainstream U.S. TV is stereotyped in some way. I'd say that the heart of the problem comes down to this: Stereotypes in media are a problem for everyone outside the white cis straight male norm. In general, the less well represented a demographic is, the more they will be stereotyped, and the smaller set of stereotypes are available. When there are less available, each one is seen a lot more often. So, the less stereotypes there are, the more they're reinforced. The more stereotypes are available, the more they're diluted and the more likely that some of them will be positive.

Trans women basically have two stereotypes. That's it. When someone says "transsexual" to a random person on the street, they probably either think "guy in a dress with multiple days worth of stubble who tells everyone he's a woman", or they think "porn star or other sex worker with a female body and a penis". If they've done a lot of "research", they may also think "porn star or other sex worker with a rather masculine body, boobs, and a penis."

And when those are the stereotypes people have, it makes problems for trans* people in general, and trans women in particular. It causes problems not because of the people who know me, but because of the people who don't. It means that when I have to disclose to the security agent at the airport when I'm traveling that I'm transgender, that's what's going to pop into their head. It means that even if I did aim at and reach a point where nobody would ever know about my background, if I ever let it slip (like by being tired and having my voice dip too low or something), that's what's going to pop into peoples' heads.

So... the point in mentioning that some of the suggested names for the sexy Poe costume made me feel unhappy... that was to get people thinking about that. About the fact that things drifted straight from "man wearing a skirt" (which is totally fine, module the feminist issues) to things that implied "you thought she was a woman, but she has a dick!"

I mentioned feeling uncomfortable because I [em]know[/em] people didn't mean to do that, and I want them to be aware that they did. Because when you do that sort of thing without realizing it, other people take that in, and it makes it more likely that they'll do the same thing, and on and on and on.

I mentioned it because I know people didn't want to say something that hurt, so I wanted to let them know so that they'll be aware of it and in the future realize they're doing it. (And maybe find a way to say something similar in a way that's more clearly positive. Because seriously, "the pit is actually a pendulum" is pretty awesome. There has to be a way to use that.)

Mex wrote:

I'm curious, what do you think about Pavel Petel? (NSFW sample image: http://i.imgur.com/7cN479A.jpg )

Looking into things a bit, he appears to be a gay Russian activist. So, some reactions: First, he's gender-bending as a form of activism, which is totally cool. I'd rate him far less obnoxious than Ru Paul (drag performance is also totally fine, but she likes to throw the word {transphobic slur} around and ignores trans women who ask her to stop, which is not fine). Second, breaking gender norms as far as style of dress goes is absolutely not something I'm against at all. If anybody wants to do that, it's totally cool. The problem is doing that in a way intended to make people who break gender norms the butt of a joke.

That's why the original photo was no big deal: It wasn't making fun of people who cross-dress, it was making fun of "sexy X" costumes. It didn't do a perfect job of that, but it wasn't too bad, and it was trying hard.

I apologize if that wasn't immediately clear.

All guys' penises look weird, honestly.

My penis is beautiful

Ok, cool, I'm going to try and digest all that, thanks : ) I'm still torn between the comedy and not offending anyone. It's like, yeah, I'll take the mariachi stereotypes if it means we can make fun of other things (not necessarily to be mean), but I'd have to think about it more, so I'll stop for now. You're a smart person, for sure. Everyone struggles with their own fights, but hopefully you can overcome the hate you experienced all your life : )

Comedy really is hard. There's been a recent trend to focus on "don't punch down" from a lot of the more thoughtful comics. Specifically, that means that whenever you do a joke that involves people who are less privileged than you, you need to make sure that they're not the butt of the joke. That's harder to do than it sounds, though, and the traditional formulas still "work", so... not everybody does it. And hey, it's not like there are likely to be any trans* people in the audience to be offended, right?

(Yeah... I've heard a [em]lot[/em] of stories from trans women of going out to comedy clubs and having the first trans joke show up in the first five minutes of the show. One person winced on twitter when it happened between when she walked into the club and when she found her seat.)

Example of how it's harder than it sounds: If you're not careful, it's easy to not break down a common cultural trope far enough. If you're trying to make something that's a satire of some aspect of culture, you need to keep enough of the original that it is recognizable, but if you want to avoid "punching down" you need to deconstruct things a fair amount and rebuild them differently. So that balance between "have to stay close to the source" and "have to change enough to actually be respectful" is rough.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

The whole penis-is-bad thing is straight up institutionalized homophobia. Guys aren't allowed to touch another penis, period. If you do, you must immediately react with sufficient horror and outrage so that nobody thinks you enjoyed or appreciated or even felt totally neutral about said touching. Anything less than that, and folk might think you're gay (which is totally fine), which is obviously horrific.

Ergo, a surprise penis demands a shocked/disdainful/horrified/disgusted response, all the moreso because your hand was going there on purpose.

So, the legion of women - lesbian or not - who view the penis as a symbol for everything that has tormented them are...homophobes?

Or the men - gay or not - with similar horrific experiences are...homophobes?

Hyp - I'm gonna respond to this in the rape culture thread. I feel like I've moved slightly out of the scope of this particular thread.

Seth wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

The whole penis-is-bad thing is straight up institutionalized homophobia. Guys aren't allowed to touch another penis, period. If you do, you must immediately react with sufficient horror and outrage so that nobody thinks you enjoyed or appreciated or even felt totally neutral about said touching. Anything less than that, and folk might think you're gay (which is totally fine), which is obviously horrific.

Ergo, a surprise penis demands a shocked/disdainful/horrified/disgusted response, all the moreso because your hand was going there on purpose.

So, the legion of women - lesbian or not - who view the penis as a symbol for everything that has tormented them are...homophobes?

Or the men - gay or not - with similar horrific experiences are...homophobes?

Really? That's what you took from my post? I was responding to

Hypatian wrote:

This dominant cultural imagining of transgender women is based on disgust at the discovery that an attractive woman has a penis—whether that disgust is expressed in terms of vomiting, or in terms of the shame that allow for blackmail, or a different expression.

As Hyp also said, "But most people who react reflexively aren't doing it because of trauma from a personal experience. Rather, most people react because of the culture in which we're steeped." Trauma victims aren't dictating cultural norms.

Hypatian wrote:

Yes, it's true that if someone learns this sort of thing unexpectedly, one might expect them to be startled. I'd argue that disgust is pretty clearly rooted in transphobia, and that there's no need to accept that.

I'd argue that it's less transphobia and more homophobia; I don't think I've ever seen "guy with surprise vagina" as a comedy prop.

I just think fear and hatred of that appendage is bigger than homophobia. I think it's tied to rape culture (I have a longer post over there).

But you're not wrong. These things are so interconnected it's tough to even pick a thread to discuss them!

Mex wrote:

Wow Hyp, I'm sad that you detect so much stuff that (to me) seems inoffensive as offensive. It probably doesn't help, but I think most of those costumes aren't like a personal attack on you, just making fun of stereotypes, I'm sure if they knew you as a person I'm sure they'd like you (Or respect you at least). Sometimes I wonder if you think too much about this stuff and maybe your mind leads you towards negative perceptions of your trans identity?

Just so you know, Mex - I am with you here. Can't anything just be a joke without deeper context? I am not saying we shouldn't be sensitive - we should absolutely be sensitive, but shouldn't people get to make a joke?

You kinda lost me after the quoted part, however:)

When certain groups of people (or individuals, for that matter) are the butt of jokes way more than everyone else, it probably stops being funny to them, you know?

SixteenBlue wrote:

When certain groups of people (or individuals, for that matter) are the butt of jokes way more than everyone else, it probably stops being funny to them, you know?

I do get that, but maybe every joke that could be superficially related to them isn't against them? I am not arguing that there aren't deeper issues that need addressed - but maybe every joke in every thread isn't indicative of a deeper problem?

SallyNasty wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

When certain groups of people (or individuals, for that matter) are the butt of jokes way more than everyone else, it probably stops being funny to them, you know?

I do get that, but maybe every joke that could be superficially related to them isn't against them? I am not arguing that there aren't deeper issues that need addressed - but maybe every joke in every thread isn't indicative of a deeper problem?

They all are, SallyNasty. It's inevitable. Jokes are funny because they tap a deeply, if unconsciously, perceived or held reality. If you have no idea what the joke is really talking about, you won't get it. Ergo, in that every joke featuring a transgender concept taps into popular notions of what that is, every joke is indicative of something deep. This is usually problematic at the moment because of all the baggage Hypatian is good enough to unpack.

I didn't used to understand American humor. I'm better at that, now. It involves assuming a lot of things which you may not like looking in the face.

So, I have a couple of main choices when somebody says something that makes me feel a little upset:

I can ignore it and move along.

Or, I can try to explain to them that it has upset me a little, and why, so that they know what happened.

In general, I try to do the latter, because I believe that people who aren't trying to upset me would rather know that they have so that they can avoid doing it in the future. And that's what I've done here. Is that a problem for some reason? It seems to me that this is the most appropriate thing to do.

I don't do it all the time, it's true. When I'm not feeling up to explaining things, I'm more likely to let stuff pass without comment. When something is more upsetting, I'm more likely to say something no matter what.

So, what's the issue? Why are people suddenly jumping in here to tell me I'm too sensitive?

Well, you went into a funny picture thread and told a poster that they hurt your feelings for posting a funny picture:) Time and place sort of deal, maybe?

Yes. I mentioned that something upset me a little, and pointed people here for why in order to avoid polluting the discussion. I presumed that people would want to know that they'd said something that upset a fellow forum poster, mentioned it briefly, added context somewhere that it wouldn't interfere, and moved on.

I think that's the appropriate way to do things.

After all, people don't go into the funny picture thread and post things intending to upset people, so surely they'd like to know how to avoid that.

SallyNasty wrote:

Well, you went into a funny picture thread and told a poster that they hurt your feelings for posting a funny picture:) Time and place sort of deal, maybe?

The insinuation that Hypatian should not have voiced how she felt where people would see it because it would make the same people who were laughing at the joke uncomfortable is actually way more offensive to me than the original picture ever was.

SallyNasty wrote:

Well, you went into a funny picture thread and told a poster that they posted a picture that was hurtful, probably quite unknowingly.

FTFY. There was no rant, no flinging about of accusations, just a mention that it was hurtful and a link to why. That's about as gentle as it gets.

Just a reminder: It was not the picture that was upsetting, it was where some of the comments on the picture went. Maybe I should have been more precise about that? I didn't quote anybody in the picture thread and I didn't attribute the quote I included in this thread because I didn't want anyone to feel that I was calling them out.

This is why I don't like this conversation. Hyp says she feels a certain way - everyone jumps to her defense. I say I feel a different way, or the comment struck me as slightly off - obviously i am an offensive anti-trans asshole. Enjoy your day, folks.

SallyNasty wrote:

This is why I don't like this conversation. Hyp says she feels a certain way - everyone jumps to her defense. I say I feel a different way, or the comment struck me as slightly off - obviously i am an offensive anti-trans asshole. Enjoy your day, folks.

Literally nobody has claimed that. These people disagree with you and have expressed their reasons why. If you want to bow out based on that, you are of course free do to so, but please don't paint this as some sort of Internet Defense Squad out to smear anyone who disagrees with Hypatian, it's disingenuous.

Yes, I'm confused, too.

SallyNasty: Could you point out what has made you feel attacked? Some quotes, maybe? I'd love to figure out what it is that makes people feel that way when I certainly don't intend to upset them (much less attack them). Knowing more would hopefully let me avoid that in the future.

I can see where Sally's opinion was called offensive. Not by you, Hyp, but i do think Sally has the right to feel a little dogpiled here.

On topic, I thought the entire nuance regarding the picture was very educational, and I appreciated the dialogue.

Yeah, I never claimed you were an asshole Sally, and I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was just trying to say that no matter how light hearted, "in the name of fun" the advice was it was still advice saying that someone who was offended should find another time and place to say so. I think we can all learn and have more fun in the future if people who are hurt by comments like this speak up and let us all know.

Seth wrote:

I can see where Sally's opinion was called offensive. Not by you, Hyp, but i do think Sally has the right to feel a little dogpiled here.

I disagree. Sally claimed that they were being labeled transphobic when this was very much not the case, and there is a rather wide gulf between what was actually posted and that.

Social, I claimed Sally's statement was more offensive than what happened in the picture thread. As the person who said it, I will own up to Sally probably feeling hurt by it. I didn't mean to imply any judgement on Sally for saying so but I did want to point out that self-censorship in the name of others' fun probably isn't the answer here.

Oh, it was what Jolly Bill said? OK, I can see how that might come across as being accusatory.

On that thought: I did actually consider sending a private message to the first poster who'd said something that made me sad. But, well, there were a few reasons I decided that the public post was better. First, a private message will always feel directed at you personally, and more accusatory because of that, even when that's not intended. Second, there had been some other comments going the same sort of direction, so I'd feel like I might have to PM those posters as well. And any future posters following along the same lines.

Most importantly: This wasn't a matter of "this is super offensive! It needs to be taken down!", it was a matter of "this will upset people, as it has upset me, and I don't think you intended that." If I PM'd the poster, they could have taken down their post, or posted an apology, or done neither. And in the future, they would hopefully be more aware of what might cause unintentional upset. But I didn't want an apology, or for the post to be taken down--I just wanted people to be more aware. With private messages, only the people I contacted individually would be aware, and they'd probably feel significantly more personally accused. With a public post, I could let everybody participating in the conversation (readers as well as posters) know that it was a little bit of a problem, and where to look if they wanted to know more.