18 Likes
Same as it ever was.
Donated.
11 Likes
You can always tell who’s a true ally by how they react when they actually have to stand up for what they say they believe in.
14 Likes
Gonna drop this here as a signal boost:
16 Likes
11 Likes
11 Likes
I don’t have a great feeling about this. I agree that in general, more visibility would probably be a better thing.
But I have seen so many different statistics for how many trans people there are – and so many different ways of defining “trans” – that I don’t really trust that 1 in 200 number.
One survey says it’s about 0.5% in adults and 1.4% in youths.
The US Census from 2022 says 0.95% of adults identify as trans, and 1.7% as “not cisgender male, cisgender female or transgender”
Pew Research (from 2024) says it’s 2% trans and 3% nonbinary at ages 18-29, 0.3% trans and 1.3% nonbinary in ages 30-49, and 0.2% trans and 0.1% nonbinary in ages 50+. (Hooray I’m one of the 0.1%! /s)
And also: worldwide, more people identify as trans in places/cultures where it is safer and more accepted to do so.
And also also: a quick Google search shows there are multiple different things called “the 200 Project” or “Project 200” already, several of which sound rather sinister and creepy to me.
16 Likes
Which is why those of us who are not trans need to visibly stand up and support the trans community, vocally, physically if needs be, in whatever way we can.
16 Likes
so this group, in an attempt to issue a statement on how trans people are under attack, wrote a section so poorly that the implication of the paragraph was that even *they* accept the framing of trans women as men
when questioned about whether any trans person reviewed it, they mentioned…
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention condemns the anti-trans agenda of the 2nd Trump Admin & warns Americans that the recent EOs against trans people will lead to greater state repression against other groups in the future.
To read the entire statement: bit.ly/AntiTransAge…
…they have non-binary people who did
i think this underscores one of the larger problems i’ve noticed with cis-led/cis-majority groups that often try to advocate for the trans community—fundamentally, they view any members of the larger trans community as essentially fungible resources
while the trans community as a whole shares a lot of overlap when it comes to the bigotries we face, the ways in which they manifest, and the ways in which material concerns affect the different groups often differs considerably in practice
for instance, those who do not medically transition…
…often experience medical discrimination differently than those that do (for example, in getting hrt prescriptions or receiving (preventative) organ-specific health care)
to phrase this a different way, a lot of cis organizations seem to believe that the “trans community”, as it were, as a…
…largely undifferentiated, somewhat monolithic group, more comparable to cis gay men or cis lesbians (where intracommunity fault/fracture lines are often more around race and class than queer identity)
this is the wrong way to look at it, i think: a better analogy would be a comparison to the…
…asian diaspora community. as an identity, “asian american” (or “asian canadian”, etc.) is often seen by the non-asian majority as a largely fungible group: chinese, japanese, korean, lao, hmong, filipina, all are interchangeable
in actuality, the differences in concerns between each…
…smaller diasporic community matters a lot: chinese who immigrated post-2000s tend to have very different views and concerns compared to the paper sons of the late 19th and early 20th, who have different concerns than the issei and nisei who saw the camps; who have different issues than…
…the vietnamese and hmong boat people of the 70s, or koreans who fled the dictatorships pre-90s vs. nouveau riche koreans wanting an easier life than the helljoseon of the 2000s
similarly, the transgender community should be seen less as a single marginalized identity, but rather as an…
…umbrella, more political identity: for example, medically transitioning transsexuals, be they trans men or trans women, have different material concerns compared to non-medically transitioning non-binary folk; trans men’s oppression often has dissimilar roots to trans women’s; and for…
…non-binary folk cleavages between those for whom validity is a primary concern versus those for whom physical dysphoria is a primary concern
this may seem to be extremely niche differences, but they lead to very different conclusions when analyzing the bigotries being set forth by the…
…british, labour-led starmer régime versus the american, conservative-led trump régime
any cis-led organization that does not understand that trans people are not fungible will miss these key differences, and lead to a very visible disaster like what the lemkin institute saw today
in short, when the vast majority of trans women take issue with the wording of a statement, it is not really a suitable defense to say that you have non-binary reviewers
you end up throwing both groups under the bus while coming out looking like detached, ignorant, blundering “allies”
ETA:
It looks like they deleted the statement. Here was the offending paragraph:
15 Likes
I don’t read that as saying that transwomen are men. I see it as saying that the Trump government says that transwomen are men, and also in the course of their rhetoric that transwomen aren’t safe around ciswomen it reveals a foundational misandry in their assumptions.
Like, it’s not that it’s not the case that the rational risk calculation for most women is not to entirely trust men as a category (there are too many examples of gendered violence and abuse from all directions to be able to say there’s no general problem), but the rhetoric is that no woman can ever be safe around any man, ever. It’s turning the logic around, instead of “there exist men who are a danger to at least one woman; there is at least one woman who is in danger from a man”, the rhetoric turns it into “all men are a danger to all women; all women are in danger from all men.”
I’m probably putting my point across clumsily. I just think that what was written in that paragraph is not them saying that transwomen are men, but that the people they’re talking about claim that, and also they say that men are an existential threat, and that while each position is bad the combination is worse.
5 Likes
13 Likes
Yeah. That’s “problematic”. Anyone who asked a trans woman to review that would have heard an earful.
13 Likes
I’m not trans and I hesitated to post this. I don’t want to make the same mistake the Lemkin institute did. But reading that paragraph- it bothers me. I hope the rest of the statement was better.
I don’t think they were saying that trans women are men either. But it’s a problem that the paragraph could be interpreted that way without even stretching. For a statement like this, the language needs to be as unambiguous as possible. The bigger problem, I believe, was focusing on the misandry of assuming men are a threat at all. It reinforced the rhetoric the statement is supposed to be against and minimized the harm against the actual targets and victims. Particularly when that focus is placed on the most protected and privileged gender. It’s like when discussing how misogyny is harmful to men too. The topic needs a delicate touch to avoid minimizing the harm to the victims and giving men yet more attention
Also bad they didn’t have any trans people review it. If an official statement is going to get into the weeds of discussing how anti-trans rhetoric is harmful to everyone (and it is!), then they need trans people involved to provide perspective from different areas of a varied community and make sure they aren’t being insulting at the same time.
Edit: damn you auto-inncorrect. I was not discussing lemons
12 Likes
Yeah…that paragraph in question confuses the hell out of me. If they’re trying to say that’s what the Trump Administration is saying…wouldn’t that mean they’re saying the Trump Administration is misandrist? Does anyone think that? The Trump Administration views all men as a threat to women? Really? I don’t think that’s what the Trump Administration thinks at all. Quite the opposite, actually. They’re a bunch of misogynists. Believing that women are weaker than men and, therefore, need protection from men is NOT a misandrist viewpoint.
15 Likes
The only people I’d tar with that brush are J.K Trolling and the Terf brigade. Again, not because men are not a threat, but if you think someone will act, or be, a certain way because of an innate characteristic, that’s a classic sign of a closed, bigoted mind.
6 Likes
Still, I’d rather be with the bear till men sort themselves out.
13 Likes
I’m curious as to why women who’ve transitioned to male aren’t being kept out of sports, or are they?
6 Likes
They’re not being directly targeted; but would be prevented from competing for taking testosterone therapy.
Edit: from competing against women. I think the new exec order says birth assignment; which would bar them from competing against men too.
14 Likes
Thank you. I could not figure out how to phrase that. I guess the best take for me is that my “dude, your privilege is showing” meter is getting better at making me shut up!
11 Likes