I don’t understand how wanting to use feminine pronouns for someone femme-presenting and “wanting to be a woman” is “forcing an agenda”? Is respect an agenda now?
Also, it seems like it would give her dysphoria to use he/him pronouns on someone who wants to be the opposite gender (although I realize pronouns =/= gender)
They don’t respect trans people, and they view using the correct pronouns as being “forced” to show respect. Pretty much just people being cruel as always
If you’re genuinely curious, I can give you a glimpse into their rationality (though I strongly disagree with it).
Say, for just a brief moment, that you consider trans people to be mentally ill. Calling them by their preferred pronouns would be like giving a drink to an alcoholic–you’d be encouraging it, which would be to their detriment. And worse, you’d be liable to whatever diety might be displeased with your actions that caused someone else to continue in their sin.
Of course, that only works if you have a very poor understanding of both gender and theology. The real reason the bigots don’t like trans people is because it challenges their worldview, which is uncomfortable. And instead of facing that head on, they’d rather try to justify their current view.
The Oatmeal wrote a great info comic on this.
If we’re giving them the benefit of the doubt, which I don’t think most deserve, there’s also a theological argument. For religious people (specifically Christians), they believe that people are made to God’s plan. If you are born male, they believe that’s what God intended. So changing your gender is, in their mind, blasphemy against God because it’s denying his plan for you.
Of course, this argument completely falls apart when you draw the parallel to people who change their hair color, get corrective or cosmetic surgery, etc. God also intended you to be blonde with bad eyesight, but you dyed your hair and got Lasik.
But the real answer is just bigotry. They try to rationalize their bigotry, and may not even recognize it as bigotry themselves, but that’s what it is.
Even more apparent is when you draw the parallel to birth defects, diseases, or literally any reason we affect our bodies.
Pretty much all bigots don’t realize it. There are almost no Bond villains in real life–humans can’t really exist in a state where they truly believe they’re the “bad guy.” Some people know they’re wrong, but they see themselves as a victim, not a villain.
Not only do they not recognize their bigotry, they believe themselves to be the “good guys” in this situation, with opinions on other people ranging from condescending pity to complete disregard.
If you look at from a different perspective, it all makes more sense. Right now, you’re trying to apply the incorrect logic and an ethical consistency to anti-trans efforts. The anti-trans efforts are a test to move the Overton Window rightward. Trans and NB people are such a tiny minority. By targeting and othering that demographic, Conservatives are testing how much the rest of the citizenry will tolerate the next steps in fascism: targeting other minorities, miscegenation, segregation, concentration camps… whatever it takes to make a white xian US.
I think it’s pretty fucking obvious what their problem is. They don’t want the newfound visibility that trans people have gained over the last few years to present a visible option for their kids and grandkids. They didn’t care about trans people years ago because they were largely in the shadows. Now that the language and culture around trans people is becoming visible to the average American, it has become the perfect shibboleth for the right wing to rally around no different than when the Christian right pulled abortion out of thin air as a rallying point to drive right wing voters. Don’t want your daughter to embarrass the fuck out of you at social functions when they introduce themselves as Xe/Xer/Xim? Vote Republican. That’s the point of the manufactured outrage. A way to drive funding and votes for fascism. And it worked. Trans visibility is the golden egg dropped in trumps lap that put him back in office.
This isn’t just mindless theorizing. I work with these right wing jackasses. It’s all they talk about.
the behaviors your describing dont seem “obectively” problematic whatsoever, but there are two things here that matter:
- This goes against typical conservative ideas about gender roles (especially the more sexist conservative ideas)
- There is a label for this behavior: “Transgender” This label both allows people to defend “trans people” as a group of people or category, but it also allows one to demonize the group and endlessly produce lies and propaganda about a group of people that is frankly pretty small. And importantly a group that holds no social or political power, meaning it is the perfect target for far right figures who want to sell the people a scapegoat. Honestly, you could argue the existence of this label(or maybe its prominence as an identity) is only the result of “normal” peoples need to have labels for behaviors viewed as “weird” or different from the norms. Our existence as “trans people” fundamentally makes us people different from the norm.
There are other reasons too though.
By the way, I am not saying that “the category transgender is oppressive and we should stop using it” but i do hope for a future where queer people live in such peace to the point where there is no need to rally behind labels, where we can just exist with our behaviors, being ourselves.
They’ve picked trans people as a “danger” so people don’t realise what the true dangers are (like having a fascist president, for example).
I have a friend named Mark that goes by Eddie. If you call Eddie “Mark” he will get offended because while “Mark” is Eddie’s given name it isn’t how he sees himself. Eddie prefers a different name.
Im not sure what the difference between my buddy Eddie and the situation you are talking about as it seems to be the issue is whether you should call people by their preferred name or not.
