Guest post: If they are that “acutely vulnerable”
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Protecting the public.
If they are that “acutely vulnerable” then maybe the outside world is not for them. If they really must go out of doors, they should make it brief. They should wear blinkers, lest they be upset by anything alarming coming into their peripheral vision. Looking down at the ground is also to be recommended. For longer, more dangerous journeys, they should be preceded by someone walking 10-20 yards ahead of them, ringing a bell, wearing a sign proclaiming “CAUTION: ACUTELY VULNERABLE PERSON APPROACHING!” This will give people in the vicinity time to hide from view anything that might upset or give offence.
There is no such thing as some particularly specially inordinately “acute vulnerability” that afflicts trans people and no one else.
This idea can be interpreted or rephrased a number of ways, some being more subtextual than this claim for particular sensitivity.
Only trans people’s needs and concerns are of importance.
Trans people are particularly demanding and vocal on encountering things they don’t like (like Islamists and cartoons of Muhammad), best not piss them off.
Please don’t hit us, we’ve done what you want us to.
These books are hidden away and we’ll give you a hard time and make you feel guilty about asking for them. And you should feel guilty. Bigot.
We love Big Brother trans women even more than you do. Why do you hate trans women so much?
Are trans identified people “acutely vulnerable” in a way other minorities aren’t?
I’d argue yes, they are.
Other groups don’t depend on everybody accepting new categories, unproven fact claims, and a dubious backstory in order to be recognized as a group. Gay people are sexually and romantically attracted to their own sex. Black people have an ancestry which involves characteristics like a darker skin. Poor people don’t have enough money to afford necessities. There may be disputes concerning those in the gray areas on the edges, but what makes a group unique and identifiable is usually relatively unproblematic.
The trans-identified, on the other hand, are in the same position as self-proclaimed psychics, the reincarnated, and those with Multiple Personality Disorder. We can easily pick out the people who say that’s what they are, but it’s neither self-evident nor resolved that the elements in their description of themselves are true. If someone’s identity as a beleaguered minority is wrapped up in their having once been the Queen of Ancient Egypt, then their status is precarious. All it takes to remove their right to be recognized for who they truly are is someone saying they got it wrong — and it’s plausible that yes, they got it wrong.
We all believe in the existence of a group of people who deny that their sex has anything to do with their being a man or woman. But if the category of “transgender” depends on agreement that TWAW and TMAM, then they disappear if they encounter skepticism. Other minorities fear bigotry, not skepticism. Trans ideology deliberately conflates the two because it must.
TRANS GENOCIDE!
Excellent point, well put!
Indeed.