Why post a terf in lgbt community?
Do you have evidence for this claim?
Wow. A bigot got owned by more powerful bigots.
Y’all are why the left is losing.
TLDR The left wins when we achieve working class solidarity. Excluding groups of people based on identity isn’t solidarity.
At first I thought that I needed to know what your argument defined as the left to respond to your argument. Then I realized my argument is the same regardless of that.
Any movement that success depends on excluding trans people or Palestinians or any minority group for that matter is not one I want to be a part of or one that I have any interest in succeeding.
If all we are willing to fight for is success for a handful of white cis straight men of European decent then we’ve successful divided ourselves so thoroughly that we are doomed to be ruled by either Republican fascists or Democrat fascists who serve the owner class.
Bigots use biology as a crutch to justify their bigotry. That’s how I know this woman is a bigot. Unless we are all willing to work together to fight for each other’s rights we won’t get anywhere. That means voting Democrat for the most progressives candidates we can in elections. It means solidarity with groups the Democrats would rather abandon between elections. It means abandoning bigotry and sticking with trans people.
I’ll phrase it another way. I support lesbians. I am a lesbian. Why doesn’t this woman who supports lesbians support me a transbian? How is her subscription to a division in the working class that benefits the owner class not the debilitating issue in this dynamic? Why is she not the reason the left is losing?
Why is my desire for rights the issue when I support her rights and the rights she is fighting for? I knew nothing about this woman before seeing this post. I still know mostly nothing about her. I know she doesn’t support my rights though. How am I supposed to have solidarity with her when she already went out of her way to exclude me? And why am I being gaslight into thinking I’m the problem?
There’s an idea that says we should abandon certain people based on the likelihood embracing them will cause a movement to succeed or fail. It of course adjusts this calculus based on preexisting notions of what is normal for race, ethnicity, gender, sex, attraction, physical appearance, personal ability, and everything else that shouldn’t matter at any given time.
The refutation of this line of thinking is straightforward. If we abandon trans people today it’s lesbians who will be abandoned tomorrow. But more to the point, this line of reasoning completely undermines the premise it pretends to stand for. To reiterate, the argument says, “We should stop caring about X group and just focus on the working class and calling terfs bigots is the problem”. But X group is part of the working class (X was gay people in a comment I saw elsewhere that seems to be an emotional appeal to rebrand neoliberal shifting to the right as socialist). Trans people are part of the working class. The only group that isn’t part of the working class is the owner class.
Refusing to care about a certain group of people isn’t working class solidarity. It’s doing the work of dividing the working class for the owner class.
Y’all are why the left is losing.
If you want to know why the left is losing look no further than your comment. I’m not going back in the closet. I’m not giving up on my rights because it will make it convenient for you. Fuck terfs. If she wants my support all she has to do is put down her bigotry. I’m still standing in the middle ground where lesbians and trans people get to exist thanks.
As far as I read, she doesn’t say anything about being against trans rights. What I read is that she believes that being trans doesn’t change someone’s gender, and I think that’s different to being a bigot. One can respect trans people without believing transitioning actually changes their gender, because the meaning of gender has evolved, and not everyone agrees (and this is coming from someone who actually agrees).
I think it’s important not to use the word “bigotry” as willy nilly, because if people start calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a bigot, the word loses its meaning altogether.
I do believe in people being transgender, but I do have friends that don’t but, nevertheless, respect trans people anyway. One can believe transitioning doesn’t change the underlying gender but still respect the people who do it anyway.
This might sound a bit weird, but I think the principle is very similar: You can have an atheist and a theist in the same room. Their beliefs are inherently different, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can respect each other.
One person in the room doesn’t believe the other person in the room has the right to exist. They cannot respect someone they are against existing in the first place. The groups are not the same. They don’t have different viewpoints, one group just want to exist and to be left alone, the other wants to remove them.
You can have an atheist and a theist in the same room. Their beliefs are inherently different, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can respect each other.
But this comparison completely fails to encapsulate the disagreement in question between terfs and trans people. The theist argues that god(s) exists in some capacity while the atheist argues that god(s) do(es) not exist in any capacity. The relevant debate between the theist and the atheist only references god(s) not the theist or the atheist.
The relevant debate between terfs and trans people inherently references the trans people. Whether or not trans people get to exist as their gender is the debate.
One can believe transitioning doesn’t change the underlying gender but still respect the people who do it anyway.
The reason transitioning doesn’t change our underlying gender is that we are already our underlying gender whether we transition or not. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Despite not having transitioned physically I am a woman. Before I knew I was a woman I was a woman who thought I was a man. Some people are gender fluid. A gender fluid person’s gender can change at any time. Physically transitioning isn’t the standard we use to determine who is or isn’t trans or what a person’s gender is.
Transitioning is for the benefit of trans people, not how gender is changed. Physically transitioning involves changing sex characteristics. Gender is a social construct. A person’s lived experience is going to be how a person determines their gender before anything involving physically changing sex characteristics is relevant.
I do believe in people being transgender, but I do have friends that don’t but, nevertheless, respect trans people anyway.
You don’t need to believe that trans people exist. I, a trans person, am writing to you right now. What about me do these friends of yours respect if not my right to exist as myself? I am a woman. I am going to be a woman whether or not anyone believes it. If they can’t respect me as a woman then they don’t respect me.
I think it’s important not to use the word “bigotry” as willy nilly, because if people start calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a bigot, the word loses its meaning altogether.
I used the term bigot to refer to a well known kind of bigot, terfs, trans exclusionary radical feminists. But even still, people who disagree that trans people have a right to exist, which I didn’t realized needed to be said, as the gender trans people say they are, are bigots. Their intolerance against trans people is what makes a person a bigot. There is no tolerant way to argue someone shouldn’t exist.
As far as I read, she doesn’t say anything about being against trans rights.
BIOLOGY IS NOT BIGOTRY.
This is called a dog whistle. It’s called a dog whistle because much like real dog whistles If you aren’t part of the group it’s designed to be heard by you likely can’t hear it. This idea that biology determines gender isn’t supported by any credible body of scientific research but it’s a commonly used to tactic to justify the arbitrary social norms around gender.
If you are a trans person you’ve had this argument thrown at you before and know it’s an attack line to demonize and undermine you. If you aren’t a trans person it can come off as a seemingly reasonable defense of a woman’s political views that appeals to the gender binary most people grew up with. Much like war on crime or war on drugs can sound like a politician is talking about stopping crime or drug trafficking to a white person but they mean over-policing black people.
What I read is that she believes that being trans doesn’t change someone’s gender, and I think that’s different to being a bigot.
Being trans means a person’s gender does not match the gender that person was assigned at birth usually based on sex characteristics. So being trans doesn’t change a person’s gender. But it does mean a person may realize later that their gender was not what they thought it was. Also being trans does mean a person is the gender that they say they are regardless of what society says a person’s sex characteristics mean. That last one is the actual relevant discussion.
One can respect trans people without believing transitioning actually changes their gender, because the meaning of gender has evolved, and not everyone agrees (and this is coming from someone who actually agrees).
Trans people have existed as long as there have been people. Even as concepts of gender changed over time and people decided that this modern gender binary always existed.
If a person doesn’t believe a trans man when he tells that person he is a man that person isn’t being respectful. The same way it would be disrespectful for a person to not believe a cis man when he tells that person he is a man.
Our understanding of gender has evolved. Insisting that the word gender has some inherent meaning as opposed to acknowledging that gender is a social construct is part of the problem. The fact some people cling to the artificial gender binary at the expense of real people is also part of the problem.
The fact you agree is appreciated. So I wrote you this explanation. I recommend reading up on the topic further before commenting on these issues in comment sections of posts in communities on this instance. You gave the terfs the benefit of the doubt which was nice of you.
We, trans people on this instance, are already familiar with terfs and their talking points. We do not get give terfs the benefit of the doubt here. If you would like to continue this or similar discussions consider asking first and giving an opinion second. Otherwise I look forward to your ban. Hope that helps!
Please elaborate
Shirt goes hard, I can’t lie. Is there any proof that Allah isn’t a lesbian?
Religious country it’s actually dumb of her considering that. Freedom of speech doesn’t exist especially not in a religious country
Freedom of expression is defined in the Moroccan Constitution and is the basis for her defense.
It’s also an insane thing to put your trust in considering the circumstances. Especially when I’m not sure she gains anything personally from that statement outside of offending fragile people. I think if the message she was spreading or law she was breaking felt more personal I’d feel less like commenting like this or even agree that this is totally worth fighting for. But the power to insult people’s religion is too low of a bar.
It’s weird coming from me since I constantly insult Christianity, but I also don’t live in a theocratic monarchy ( ? or something like that) so I’d definitely leave before that. Unless I didn’t care of they decided to off me
So islam isn’t accepting women’s rights in any form. Like every year since the beginning of islam.
But islam says it supports women’s rights, as it locks women in prison.
Religions lie. That’s what they do. Not just islam, they all do the exact same thing. Religions are lies, but their hate is real.
Islam was progressive at the time of its formation. Look into how bedouin women lived at the time. Islam was so successful because it treated people better than the masters they had. I can accept that it is conservative now and I am not refuting this but don’t bismirch its history.
Look at how Islamic communities treat women in liberal democratic countries. They do everything in their power to keep them oppressed, despite the (relatively) progressive society that surrounds them.
Okay sure, I agree that this isn’t entirely uncommon but how is it inherent to religion
I’d argue that religion is inherently evil. Every. Fucking. One.
Then argue it, so we might see if your claim has substance
I’m good thanks.
Then I encourage you to avoid making dogmatic claims if you are unwilling to defend them
Aggressively spreading misinformation on important topics is bad. Not too complicated
How is that inherent to the belief in a creator?
deleted by creator
Even buddhism was used for awful things in tibet. I believe the problem is with class society and hierarchy not religion. Plenty of secular groups do similarly awful shit
I don’t know if Buddhism is necessarily “inherently evil,” but it absolutely can and has been used as a justification of violence.
Just look at places like Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
Buddha abandoned his family and obsessed over suffering. Encouraged people to give up possessions and be happy about it which ultimately aids the state in oppressing people. He also encouraged people to harm their body through starvation and created entire sects of followers who self-mummified through self-inflicted harm. Also his wife was 16 when he married her, and that’s a very generous analysis. I could say even worse things but I won’t.
Because I’m not saying this as an attack on Buddhism or its followers. I’m saying this as an example that you can misinterpret or willfully misrepresent any religion to meet your own goals and bias. That doesn’t prove inherit evilness, it just proves the ability to reenforce bias through bad faith engagement.
deleted by creator
So firstly, I am not a theologian. There are people who literally dedicate their lives to questions like these. I am not one of them. I also am not interested in discussing the merit or lack there of of Buddhism, I merely meant my oversimplification of its tenets to serve as an illustration of my point.
As to the Abrahamic “critiques” you shared, my gut reaction to the slander of the Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) completely misses the mark on the entire purpose of the story. The practice of sacrificing children to gods was unnervingly commonplace across human societies (take a look at any archeological record globally.) The switching of his son (either Isaac or Ismail) and a ram is meant to serve as an alternative to a long standing damaging cultural practice. It was a “hey, kill a ram instead of a kid then eat that ram. It’s better for everyone.” Scenario. In that light Abraham was miles ahead of his times and it was meant to illustrate the mercy of God, not cruelty.
It’s like taking this verse “And when the female infant buried alive is questioned: For what sin was she killed.” And saying holy shit Islam buries baby girls alive! No. Full stop. **This was a horrific and unethical practice. ** Islam said fuck that. Do it and your daughter will testify on your day of judgement for what you killed her. She will give testimony on why to bar you from Paradise. It advocated for ending infanticide. Not for promoting it.
These are just some very simple examples that conveniently prove my point. You can certainly take fine toothed comb through generations of religious literature but there are believers who are doing this as well. Just because some man wrote something doesn’t mean it always makes it into canon and modern practice. A lot of the scriptures are challenged and discussed to exhaustion in religious settings. Much like your nuanced defense of Buddhism is a prime example of your own quick version of it.
I’m not saying there aren’t questionable things in religions. I’m saying it’s easy to throw the baby out with the bath water with pretty much every religion when you start nitpicking. Context matters.
But, this forum is probably not the appropriate place for an entire nuanced discussion on the ins and outs of theology. This topic is way too large and complex for addressing under a post that’s meant to center women and LGBTQ+ liberation movements. I’ve probably already overspent my welcome on said topic. (If you find a forum more appropriate for this sort of discourse feel free to tag me there to continue this topic.)
They didn’t invent the claim, and if you actually cared to know, you’d find that there’s a shit load of substance out there already.
I was an angry athiest for a long time, trust me I have looked and I am today unconvinced that religion is an inherent evil
Women are oppressed everywhere men are found. That oppression just manifests differently culture to culture. This is a governments law being enforced by a government. It may be based on perceived religious principles but it’s still man’s law, one that was heavily designed by medieval interpretations and applied unevenly by a patriarchal system (also, not unique to Islamic dominated countries).
Also, she is being jailed for blasphemy. She wanted to make a statement. She did and her government is throwing the book at her. She’s confronting her own country’s inequities just like suffragettes did in the West. Something that is not inherently without risk. She’s working towards reforms in her home country like many women globally do every day. (Which I might add many women are working within Islam for reform as well, just as they have within sects of Christianity in the West.)
This isn’t an Islam issue, or even a religion issue, it’s a systemic patriarchal issue that hides behind religion to dole out oppression. Using faith as a manipulation tactic to serve political agendas.
This isn’t an Islam issue.
What a load of complete bullshit this post is lol. At some point you just say ‘this defies credibility’. This post took that sentiment and launched itself straight off the cliff of reason.
I’m struggling to understand your argument here because it appears you have none. Only a visceral hate for Islam. You’ve already determined your prejudice and are blinded by that. Completely missing the nuance of what I’m saying. You’d rather your black and white understanding of the world be true than address the larger picture. Or have I missed something?
There’s something larger at work here than simply “Islam bad”. Islam is used by power structures as a tool. I’m not saying there aren’t followers who believe this. I personally find her shirt very offensive, Allah SWT has no gender, but that’s the entire point of the shirt. To upset, disrupt and challenge norms and powers that be. I respect her courage at challenging centuries old practices. But I’m also from the West and understand free speech and liberation comes at the cost of sometimes being offended. Just like people will wear slurs for certain lifestyles. I respect her right to wear something that I find offensive and more than anything what she’s attempting to do overall. (I could go into the various levels of what this shirt is saying but I think it’d be lost on you as you seem to be operating from a very limited space on Islamic scholarship.)
If you care to know there are many women, some of the most notable from her own home country, that are feminist scholars of Islam. They’re hard at work within their faith and society to advocate for systemic change. Feminism in Islam may not look like what you’re used to but that doesn’t make it any less important. Women should be able to advocate for their needs within their context- not just replicating Western values. Muslim women don’t need rescuing and one-size-fits-all top down ascription of values from outside. They got this.
See: Fatema Mernissi and Asma Lamrabet
Yeah no of course the insane cultists can do no wrong. They said so themselves so. Grow up.
Yeah, that was not what was said. It seems you’ve had some deep emotional reaction here and I’m sorry if there’s some underlying religious trauma that was triggered. But reducing billions of people worldwide who experience faith or some form of spirituality to “insane cultists” isn’t a whole lot better than the extremists you’re hoping to lash out at.
It’s also ignoring the agency of the individuals at the frontlines of reformist movements within their home countries and communities. I doubt that was your intent, but rather you’re struggling with your own inherit bias and potential past negative experiences. But I’ll remind you gay marriage and LGBTQ+ pastors or churches didn’t spontaneously appear. They were spaces created from within groups of people who experience faith. Those parallel discourses are integral to systemic and long lasting change.
I’m just being objective here. These are not sane people. They’ve been abused since childhood and continue their circle of abuse through their own (and others) children.
And reverts? Converts? I hear your anger. But writing off entire global communities as ‘insane’ or ‘abused’ ignores the reality of human agency, diversity of interpretation, and the courageous work of people, including LGBTQ+ people of faith who are reforming traditions from within. Dismissing them isn’t ‘objective’ or make you ‘better’ it’s another form of erasure. You’re repeating a lot of dogmatic, dehumanizing and brainwashing rhetoric yourself, so I’m going to leave you to sit with that. Hope you can find closure.
reforming traditions from within.
Good for them I guess, but what’s the point when the holy books themselves are rabidly misogynistic? There’s only so much reformation you can do without completely discarding the foundations of the religions themselves. Granted, that’s what most Christians do with the old testament.
Using faith as a manipulation tactic to serve political agendas.
Right so it is a religion issue, because that’s what they’re using to oppress.
I hear you. But, I would say not any more than wage gaps in the US are a Christian problem. Fire can be used to cook or used to burn down your house. It’s not fire that’s inherently good or bad. It’s whose hands it’s in and how they’re using it.
Reducing the argument to “if Islam/religion was gone everything would be fixed” is simply oversimplification of complex socio-cultural problems between the sexes that exist across the entire world, often where Abrahamic faiths don’t even exist traditionally. I mean places they’ve abolished religion should be women led utopias accepting of all genders and sexual expressions right? But we don’t see that. They just change tactics using biological sciences or dogmatic “hunter gatherer, this is how it’s always been” conservatism.
Also, faith and religion are not automatically synonymous. Religion implies societal hierarchy, whereas faith is personal. I stand by Islam in and of itself existing isn’t the primary problem here. She may be provoking power with antiquated laws surrounding it, triggering an unevenly applied ‘blasphemy’ law, but that’s not Islam, that is the patriarchal machine whirring to life to oppress a woman challenging their systemic and deep seated cultural bias.
See: Fatema Mernissi and Asma Lamrabet (they are Islamic feminists of Moroccan origin that can do a better job of explaining this than me.)
This isn’t an Islam issue
I mean in this specific case it does relate to Islam
You’d think a religion that’s supposed to be “the one true religion” (like all of them think they are) would be more secure in itself, not getting so upset about someone making fun of it, but no, once again, muslims show just how much a bunch of snowflakes they are.
The natural selection of memes selects for it, it must be a pretty good way for ideas to survive even if it’s contradictory.
Bold move and protest. Fighting injustice rarely comes without consequences and she is ready to take those consequences to make a stand.
Good for her.
