Oppression for the Bugatti set
I keep wondering about this “most vulnerable” thing – the endless repetition of the claim that trans people are “among the most vulnerable” or just plain “the most vulnerable.”
Why do people think that?
In a world where we have wars, genocides, torture, rape, poverty, earthquakes, floods, droughts, poverty, epidemics, secret police, criminal gangs, poverty, racism, enslavement, exploitation, poverty – how is it that people who claim to be the gender that doesn’t match their bodies are described as “the most vulnerable”?
That’s a genuine question, because I have no idea what the answer is. It’s like sitting in front of a person with multiple broken bones and severe burns, complaining about a scratch. It’s Luxury Oppression. It’s Pretend Oppression for the Comfortable. You’d think even lefty men who hate women would notice that part.
Vulnerability is a key component of the woman costume TIMs put on. Calling themselves the most vulnerable group is part of their fantasy play.
I think collective guilt and shame about the past’s homophobia casts a long shadow in the minds of progressive Euroamericans. And as for gay people ourselves, we can add personal trauma to the mix. We seem as a society, gay and straight alike, to be transferring all of our unresolved feelings about gay rights over to the trans phenomenon.
I was having dinner with someone the other night, who is sympathetic to my position. But he was very gravely concerned about the plight of “vulnerable feminine gay boys” and their anguish in the hands of cruel Republicans passing so many “anti-trans hate bills.”
I tried to take apart each of the preconceptions packed into such sentiments: trans doesn’t mean gender nonconforming; there are many ways to address anxiety over gender nonconformity that don’t involve gender identity or gender medicine; a lot of legislation being introduced is no doubt partly cynical culture-war baiting on the part of Republicans, but nevertheless, legislation to pull back on medical experiments on kids and the elimination of women’s spaces is agreeable in principle; mostly this movement is driven by entitled transvestites who’ve found a loophole and are making a giant power-grab; the curbing of free speech and general environment of panic around this topic is dangerous; homophobic and misogynistic tropes are being reinforced; etc, etc…
And he didn’t disagree with any of my points at all. But I could see that his heart wasn’t budging. A deep, emotional attachment to this cause has been generated, and it’s going to take a lot of deprogramming to undo it. This is the domain of religious belief, not rational thinking. Even among some of the most atheistic people.
[…] a comment by Artymorty on Oppression for the Bugatti […]
That all makes so much sense, alas.
You know what wouldn’t help vulnerable feminine gay boys?
Being told that they’re really women inside.
Vulnerable feminine gay boys deserve to be allowed to grow up into confident gay men. They don’t deserve to be physically stunted, prevented from maturity, made into medical patients, castrated, etc. That’s the opposite of helping them. Vulnerable feminine gay boys aren’t the beneficiaries of trans ideology; they’re its victims.
It’s interesting how people seem very concerned about “vulnerable feminine gay boys” without seemingly noticing that the current trans trend sees way more girls transitioning.In fact, every trans person I personally encounter is female to male, though I am aware of some male to female trans in the area.
What about “vulnerable butch lesbian girls?” Oh, right. Girls. Never mind.
Lesbians for sure. I feel bad for Ellen Page. Someone could have convinced her it was ok to be a lesbian and keep your body parts. That clip of her in the other post was heartbreaking. The lesbians I know seem to be perfectly happy being female, but they’re all way past adolescence and seem to have it worked out.
‘The most vulnerable’ are men who have voluntarily given up their maleness.
https://virginiasroom.co.uk/2022/01/falling-from-humanity/
High rates of suicide and murder in this demographic are supposed to be the result of people — people just like you — refusing to accept them for who they are. Gay rights didn’t really focus on the needs of gay toddlers and kindergartners. So youth is added in to the Vulnerability mix. It’s so easy to help: all you really need to do is believe them.
I suspect an additional factor is the unspoken and/or unacknowledged recognition that almost all their basic claims are on very shaky ground. The religious make much of the fragility and vulnerability of faith: it’s hard to keep believing when all the people around you think you’re crazy and truth be told you can see their point. I imagine the principle here is the same. Vulnerability all around.
iknklast: I’d guess the (mostly) unconscious reasoning goes like
a. femininity = vulnerability
b. more feminine means more vulnerable
c. contrapositive: less vulnerable means more masculine
d. ignoratio elenchi: more masculine means less vulnerable
e. when boys are feminine, they’re more vulnerable than normal
f. when girls are masculine, they’re less vulnerable than normal
g. our concern should be for the feminine boys
I think this is in part true, and agree, but for males I suspect that the largest majority of those who seek to transition or be seen as women/”girls” are autogynephilic incels who believe that they can be better women than actual women are. And they are using those feminine boys as their cover story, to gain sympathy in the way that Arty has described. This is the moment they have seized to share their secret fantasies in public while still maintaining their power status as males. And also, many of those feminine boys are straight, too. Gender expression is loosely tied to sexuality, but not completely.
The ones who are most vulnerable are teen girls, not just those who are considered tomboys and being led to believe they’re boys in girls’ suits, but those who are getting harassed by males, or have been abused, or see all the performative pressure on girls and women and believe that this is a magic bullet to malehood and a way to escape being subjected to all the painful bullshit about their bodies and roles that they just don’t want.
I’ll bet if a truly scientific survey were done on girls who wear binders, many of them would be found to be doing so who were among the first to develop or go through puberty and suffered the first teasing, hearing the whispers between boys or getting whistled by an old man when they’re twelve or so. None of these good surveys are being done because anything other than “affirmation” surgeries is considered transphobic conversion therapy.
The glomming on to the LGB rights movement was done pretty darn quick after same sex marriage was ruled legal in the U.S. And I think that Arty has it dead on – the confusion among the general public over what this all means is useful for trans activists to take the entire LGBT rainbow for its own purpose, And now, an act of resistance among the progressives who joined forces to fight for same sex marriage would be to fly the original rainbow flag. One who did so would now be called a transphobic nazi bigot.
Vulnerable feminine straight boys, and vulnerable butch straight girls are now officially erased.
JtD, exactly. Autistic people are less than 2% of the general population, but some estimate that they are 20% of children visiting gender clinics. I’m a butch straight woman who was, for a while, convinced that being ‘trans’ explained everything. My husband is one of the most effeminate straight men I know, and (fortunately) didn’t believe me. We’re both autistic, but weren’t diagnosed until around the age of fifty.
Once upon a time, decent people thought that bullying non-conforming kids was wrong; but now, suddenly, as long as the bullying includes gaslighting by the psych profession and brutal surgery, it’s laudable.