Millie's LGBTQ+ lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more discussion thread

[MillieDynamite]

But it is about writing. I write about transgenders, gays, and lesbians, and this is or was intended to be, a bit of research mining information from those with those persuasions on here. Anyone writing about these subjects could have a wealth of information from the reading of this thread, at least at first.

The thread derailed many pages ago, it would be like whipping a dead horse. I'd try again later, and maybe keep it a bit more low key?

I did wonder why it wasn't somewhere else in the forums, because it's not been about writing.

 

[AlexBailey]

The thread derailed many pages ago, it would be like whipping a dead horse. I'd try again later, and maybe keep it a bit more low key?

I did wonder why it wasn't somewhere else in the forums, because it's not been about writing.

I totally agree with Millie on this.

I’m thinking about writing situations where my trans and queer characters have to deal with real issues, issues like these where they come up against obdurate selfish people. I’m not a big imposing person but I still rarely hear complaints directly from the horses mouth. I’m interested in hearing its dying breaths.

Also, as someone who outwardly presents as queer it’s interesting to hear these arguments against my existence and inclusion in society. Seeing the arguments fall apart in the light of day is encouraging.

(Edit: I do occasionally hear epithets and experience brief disrespect but I don’t typically hear their reasoning, here I do.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

That said, I do not accept the premise that using the wrong pronouns is “violence”. Sure, it can cause subjective harm, but a conscious person with agency has the power to alter their internal landscape. To some degree, being hurt by someone’s words is a choice, and you can choose to grow and move beyond that emotional response. By treating it as some horrible act of aggression, you are actually feeding into right wing fears of suppression. Instead of, “die, you monster!”, a more effective response is “not here, you rube”.

"Using the wrong pronouns is violence" isn't a statement I'd quite endorse myself, but there's more to it than might be initially apparent, and it's worth thinking about why people might hold such an opinion.

Suppose I meet somebody coming the other way through a dark alleyway, and I want their money, and I'm enough of an arsehole not to care how they feel about that. There are several approaches I could take.

Option #1: I could simply attack them, hurting them until they're powerless to stop me from taking their money. Obviously this is violence, pure and simple. But it does come with some risks for me. They might fight back, and they might get lucky and hurt me instead. Even if I win, I might end up bruised. If I go too far and do them lasting injury or perhaps even kill them, that's likely to get me a LOT of unwanted attention.

If I'm a smarter criminal, I might go with...

Option #2: I make myself physically imposing, whether that's by working out or flashing a weapon, and I tell them: "Give me your money or I'll hurt you very badly."

Is that "violence"?

Strictly speaking, perhaps not. I haven't worked up a sweat, the other person hasn't experienced any physical pain and there's no guarantee that they will. Perhaps I'm bluffing, perhaps my gun isn't loaded.

But even if this isn't exactly "violence", the whole interaction depends on the potential for violence. It only works if the other person thinks I might be prepared to hurt them on refusal. I'm still exploiting physical advantage to harm the other person, it's just that I've found a more efficient way to do so. (And one that's still very traumatic to the victim; that kind of threat provokes some very instinctive fear reactions that don't just go away once the robber vanishes into the night.)

The law understands that threats of this kind are not just a way of expressing an opinion. Even in places where "freedom of speech" enjoys strong legal protections, this kind of threat falls outside those protections. But if I'm smarter again, I might look for ways to express that threat so that it will be recognisable only to the victim, not to the law. For instance, here's a version the Mafia uses:

My victim runs a restaurant. Every night they have a lot of empty wine bottles, which can be returned for a deposit. I offer to take the bottles off their hands. If they agree, I pocket the deposit money. If they don't, a few weeks later something bad happens to them, or their restaurant, or their loved ones, and some time after that I show up and ask again if they'd like me to take care of those bottles for them. Word gets around, until every restaurant in the neighbourhood is letting me have their empties. I never have to make an explicit threat; the silent knowledge that I'm willing to burn down their place or hurt their kids is enough to ensure their compliance. Less sexy than robbing banks at gunpoint, but much safer.

Even if everybody in town is smart enough to comply, even though the threat is communicated entirely by context, my business is still based on violence. But as long as I don't get caught on the rare occasions where I have to make good on that threat, it might be hard for the victims to convince a jury that this approach is extortion. If they try and fail, it might backfire badly for them - look at this guy, such a nutjob that he thought it was "violent" when his good neighbour offered to take away his trash for free! Why would anybody take such an oversensitive whacko seriously about anything?

Sometimes, instead of money, the object is to drive queer people out of town or some other culture-war thing. In such cases, the specifics might look very different. But the underlying trick of threatening violence in a way that's recognisable to the victim, not to the public, remains very powerful and insidious. Things like slurs and deliberate misgendering are often employed as part of that tactic, as a deniable way of signalling willinginess to commit violence against those groups. People with violence on their minds will often start out with the words before throwing punches; to a trans/queer person who's been on the receiving end of that, being called "it" can be just as menacing as "nice place you have here, be a shame if it burned down", but this may not be obvious to people who've never been there.

When people say something like "misgendering is violence", they're not saying that it's something that will break bones; rather, they're pointing out this link between the language and the physical violence. Even when the person using slurs/misgendering isn't trying to threaten, they're still giving cover to those who do, and evoking fight-or-flight responses for people who've experienced previous violence.

There is also merit in XerXesXu’s point, that it is better for us all as a community and our intellectual growth to debate (or preferably, discuss) such topics when they come up, rather than suppress them.

Yes and no.

"Debate" can be an important method for reconciling disagreements peacefully. If I think I own a car, and you think you own it, we can go to court and present our arguments for why we should own it, and then the court makes a decision and that settles the matter. One of us probably won't like the outcome, but at least it's settled and we can move on, and hopefully we have some assurances that the decision will be made in a sensible and unbiased manner. Without that kind of process, we might end up settling it through violence and that's not a good way to run a society.

Important to note, this kind of thing depends on having some kind of agreement on underlying principles. We probably agree that the person who paid for a thing should be the one who owns it, and then the case will probably resolve around establishing who actually did pay for it.

But a lot of the exchanges that get presented as "debate" are never going to come to a conclusion. Imagine if we had that court case, and I lost, and the very next day I could start the whole process again in the hope that this time the verdict will be different. Imagine if your position was "the person who paid for the car should own it" and my position was "the person who really wants the car should own it" and there was no agreement on which of those principles should decide the case. That's when "debate" stops being a way to live together in harmony and becomes just a way of wasting people's time and annoying them.

All I can do is encourage openness and moderation from both sides. We all have some good points to make, and we all also carry a lot of biases. Whenever possible, try to be charitable. If the other person is strident and aggressive, try to make them feel like an asshole by killing them with kindness. You change minds by first changing hearts.

"Meet me in the middle," says the intolerant man.

You take a step towards him. He takes a step back.

"Meet me in the middle," says the intolerant man.

Many issues do have two sides to them, and sometimes the answer lies somewhere between them. But sometimes one side is more or less right and the other side is just bullshit, and it's important to be able to recognise those times. (Which requires annoying time-consuming things like researching issues, thinking through them and evaluating arguments.)

If we're not willing to do that, if we always try to resolve such issues by starting from the assumption that Both Sides Have Good Points and that the true solution must lie halfway between them... that isn't actually a path to peace and understanding. Quite the opposite: it rewards extremism and fuels polarisation.

 

[AlexBailey]

As far as whether intentionally misgendering someone is violence:

I don’t think it is on its own. It’s disrespectful and an asshole thing to do, but I don’t think it should land you in jail on its own.

In a work environment it’s perfectly reasonable to fire someone who can’t get along with their workmates. In a government job it’s perfectly reasonable to set a standard for conduct and what is acceptable.

In school it should be treated the same as if a student insists on harassing disabled or people if any particular race. Abuse doesn’t belong in a public learning environment.

In conjunction with violent crime the use of epithets can justify penalty enhancements because they show the perpetrators intent - to terrorize, to influence society through violence rather than a legal or democratic process.

 

[CuriouslyBiDom]

The thread derailed many pages ago, it would be like whipping a dead horse. I'd try again later, and maybe keep it a bit more low key?

I did wonder why it wasn't somewhere else in the forums, because it's not been about writing.

I apologize for contributing to the derailing.

Bramblethorn, thanks for the well-thought out response. If you don’t mind, I would like to respond over DM in consideration of peoples’ desire to get back on topic.

 

[XerXesXu]

"Using the wrong pronouns is violence" isn't a statement I'd quite endorse myself, but there's more to it than might be initially apparent, and it's worth thinking about why people might hold such an opinion.

Suppose I meet somebody coming the other way through a dark alleyway, and I want their money, and I'm enough of an arsehole not to care how they feel about that. There are several approaches I could take.

Option #1: I could simply attack them, hurting them until they're powerless to stop me from taking their money. Obviously this is violence, pure and simple. But it does come with some risks for me. They might fight back, and they might get lucky and hurt me instead. Even if I win, I might end up bruised. If I go too far and do them lasting injury or perhaps even kill them, that's likely to get me a LOT of unwanted attention.

If I'm a smarter criminal, I might go with...

Option #2: I make myself physically imposing, whether that's by working out or flashing a weapon, and I tell them: "Give me your money or I'll hurt you very badly."

Is that "violence"?

Strictly speaking, perhaps not. I haven't worked up a sweat, the other person hasn't experienced any physical pain and there's no guarantee that they will. Perhaps I'm bluffing, perhaps my gun isn't loaded.

But even if this isn't exactly "violence", the whole interaction depends on the potential for violence. It only works if the other person thinks I might be prepared to hurt them on refusal. I'm still exploiting physical advantage to harm the other person, it's just that I've found a more efficient way to do so. (And one that's still very traumatic to the victim; that kind of threat provokes some very instinctive fear reactions that don't just go away once the robber vanishes into the night.)

The law understands that threats of this kind are not just a way of expressing an opinion. Even in places where "freedom of speech" enjoys strong legal protections, this kind of threat falls outside those protections. But if I'm smarter again, I might look for ways to express that threat so that it will be recognisable only to the victim, not to the law. For instance, here's a version the Mafia uses:

My victim runs a restaurant. Every night they have a lot of empty wine bottles, which can be returned for a deposit. I offer to take the bottles off their hands. If they agree, I pocket the deposit money. If they don't, a few weeks later something bad happens to them, or their restaurant, or their loved ones, and some time after that I show up and ask again if they'd like me to take care of those bottles for them. Word gets around, until every restaurant in the neighbourhood is letting me have their empties. I never have to make an explicit threat; the silent knowledge that I'm willing to burn down their place or hurt their kids is enough to ensure their compliance. Less sexy than robbing banks at gunpoint, but much safer.

Even if everybody in town is smart enough to comply, even though the threat is communicated entirely by context, my business is still based on violence. But as long as I don't get caught on the rare occasions where I have to make good on that threat, it might be hard for the victims to convince a jury that this approach is extortion. If they try and fail, it might backfire badly for them - look at this guy, such a nutjob that he thought it was "violent" when his good neighbour offered to take away his trash for free! Why would anybody take such an oversensitive whacko seriously about anything?

Sometimes, instead of money, the object is to drive queer people out of town or some other culture-war thing. In such cases, the specifics might look very different. But the underlying trick of threatening violence in a way that's recognisable to the victim, not to the public, remains very powerful and insidious. Things like slurs and deliberate misgendering are often employed as part of that tactic, as a deniable way of signalling willinginess to commit violence against those groups. People with violence on their minds will often start out with the words before throwing punches; to a trans/queer person who's been on the receiving end of that, being called "it" can be just as menacing as "nice place you have here, be a shame if it burned down", but this may not be obvious to people who've never been there.

When people say something like "misgendering is violence", they're not saying that it's something that will break bones; rather, they're pointing out this link between the language and the physical violence. Even when the person using slurs/misgendering isn't trying to threaten, they're still giving cover to those who do, and evoking fight-or-flight responses for people who've experienced previous violence.
fuels polarisation.

On the topic of writing, use fewer word rather than more. Does anyone think BT made this allegation any better than AwkwardMD did at #280? Maybe BT was that friend she was speaking for.

 

[Escierto]

Why do the haters come to these threads to stir up trouble? What is it that compels them to spread their hatred everywhere?

 

[XerXesXu]

But it is about writing. I write about transgenders, gays, and lesbians, and this is or was intended to be, a bit of research mining information from those with those persuasions on here. Anyone writing about these subjects could have a wealth of information from the reading of this thread, at least at first.

You've found out a lot about how some transgenders, gays and lesbians in some cultures behave toward others, who are none of these things, and how that contributes to their own feelings of alienation.

 

[MelissaBaby]

On the topic of writing, use fewer word rather than more. Does anyone think BT made this allegation any better than AwkwardMD did at #280? Maybe BT was that friend she was speaking for.

I understand that your schtick here is to project a smug sense of superiority, but when you try to rank on Bramblethorn as a writer, you are way out ahead of your skis.

 

[CuriouslyBiDom]

I understand that your schtick here is to project a smug sense of superiority, but when you try to rank on Bramblethorn as a writer, you are way out ahead of your skis.

I meant what I said, but XerXes, you are being kind of a dick.

 

[XerXesXu]

As far as whether intentionally misgendering someone is violence:

I don’t think it is on its own. It’s disrespectful and an asshole thing to do, but I don’t think it should land you in jail on its own.

In a work environment it’s perfectly reasonable to fire someone who can’t get along with their workmates. In a government job it’s perfectly reasonable to set a standard for conduct and what is acceptable.

In school it should be treated the same as if a student insists on harassing disabled or people if any particular race. Abuse doesn’t belong in a public learning environment.

In conjunction with violent crime the use of epithets can justify penalty enhancements because they show the perpetrators intent - to terrorize, to influence society through violence rather than a legal or democratic process.

I don't know where you live. I live in The Phillipines, but have a keen interest in what happens in the UK. What constitutes ' perfectly reasonable' grounds for excluding persons from the workplace, the school, the teaching profession and the profession of religious faith on the basis of beliefs about sex, gender and pronouns is one of the hottet topics of the day.

 

[XerXesXu]

I understand that your schtick here is to project a smug sense of superiority, but when you try to rank on Bramblethorn as a writer, you are way out ahead of your skis.

BT is rather more ariculate than you are despite what some would call being (not me) a 'wordy bitch'.

 

[XerXesXu]

I meant what I said, but XerXes, you are being kind of a dick.

If you review this thread you'll see who' uses words of abuse like 'dick', 'ass' and so on, and it's not me. What does that tell you?

 

[AlexBailey]

I don't know where you live. I live in The Phillipines, but have a keen interest in what happens in the UK. What constitutes ' perfectly reasonable' grounds for excluding persons from the workplace, the school, the teaching profession and the profession of religious faith on the basis of beliefs about sex, gender and pronouns is one of the hottet topics of the day.

Are you waving the flag for intolerance?

 

[XerXesXu]

Are you waving the flag for intolerance?

For tolerance, in a world where many believe in the Orwellian mantra 'Tolerance is Intolerance.'

 

[MillieDynamite]

I've also found out a great deal about you. Despite my request to get the thread back on the subject, you continue to bicker. If you have an observation other than who's more or less tolerant, please make it. Tell us about your experience as or with gays, transgenders, lesbians, queers, or the dysphoric people in your world.

Otherwise, agree to disagree and get on with whatever you like. But please stop bickering. I'm not responding to any more bait adorning your hook. I'd suggest everyone do the same.

You've found out a lot about how some transgenders, gays and lesbians in some cultures behave toward others, who are none of these things, and how that contributes to their own feelings of alienation.

 

[AlexBailey]

For tolerance, in a world where many believe in the Orwellian mantra 'Tolerance is Intolerance.'

Please clarify your statement in simpler terms for us dimwits.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

On the topic of writing, use fewer word rather than more. Does anyone think BT made this allegation any better than AwkwardMD did at #280? Maybe BT was that friend she was speaking for.

From your consistent and constant taking a view 180 degrees from everyone else scattered through out AH, I see you are contrarian only interested in stirring up trouble and derailing conversation. It's a game with you, while you claim some high moral stance, allow dissenting views, all the while not allow dissent with you. You are virtuoso of argument for the sake of discord. A maestro of mayhem in the key of FU.

 

[XerXesXu]

I've also found out a great deal about you. Despite my request to get the thread back on the subject, you continue to bicker. If you have an observation other than who's more or less tolerant, please make it. Tell us about your experience as or with gays, transgenders, lesbians, queers, or the dysphoric people in your world.

Otherwise, agree to disagree and get on with whatever you like. But please stop bickering. I'm not responding to any more bait adorning your hook. I'd suggest everyone do the same.

Of course. I refer you to my posts at #175 and #188. It's only when a poster suggested uncomfortable opinions were not welcome that I responded with a bog-standard appeal to allow free speech and for tolerance. You now know how uncomfortable those things are regarded in certain of the communities you're interested in.

My advice to one side is, 'Care less about where people pee,' and to the other 'Care less about other peoples' use of pronouns.' In a nutshell 'Care less, Tolerate more'.

 

[XerXesXu]

Please clarify your statement in simpler terms for us dimwits.

You've seen my response to Millie. If dimwits are really interested in the concept of 'Coercive control by Appeals to Harmony', they can open their own thread.

 

[MillieDynamite]

No. Not interested.

Of course. I refer you to my posts at #175 and #188. It's only when a poster suggested uncomfortable opinions were not welcome that I responded with a bog-standard appeal to allow free speech and for tolerance. You now know how uncomfortable those things are regarded in certain of the communities you're interested in.

My advice to one side is, 'Care less about where people pee,' and to the other 'Care less about other peoples' use of pronouns.' In a nutshell 'Care less, Tolerate more'.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I suposed you have missed that is my own thread. So, please, take your advice and do so.

You've seen my response to Millie. If dimwits are really interested in the concept of 'Coercive control by Appeals to Harmony', they can open their own thread.

 

[XerXesXu]

From your consistent and constant taking a view 180 degrees from everyone else scattered through out AH, I see you are contrarian only interested in stirring up trouble and derailing conversation. It's a game with you, while you claim some high moral stance, allow dissenting views, all the while not allow dissent with you. You are virtuoso of argument for the sake of discord. A maestro of mayhem in the key of FU.

Did you never think that you should apologise to Millie for derailing the thread?

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Did you never think that you should apologise to Millie for derailing the thread?

While I have added to the derailment, I didn't start it... You're obfuscating once again, hiding behind misdirection.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

@XerXesXu, I have a question for you. How do you talk to your LGBTQ friends? Do you have friends that aren't CIS white people?

Did you never think that you should apologise to Millie for derailing the thread?