This response to articles about polling and demographic data will never not strike me as extremely weird. Nobody is, by any means, generalizing men any more than the data itself would show. Note the article does not attempt to establish or perpetuate any stereotypes about men as a group, it is a fairly straightforward reading of the polling data. If it’s the headline that bothers you I have to ask why? It does not make any generalized claims about men that are not backed up by self-reported polling. I hate to keep having this fight, but this is increasingly becoming an issue and poses a threat to constructive discussion.
EDIT: If you are not certain why it is notable that men are the drivers of transphobia in this instance it is because most of the transphobic rhetoric in the country relies on claims of protecting women’s rights and spaces.
“If you are not certain why it is notable that men are the drivers of transphobia in this instance it is because most of the transphobic rhetoric in the country relies on claims of protecting women’s rights and spaces.”
Are you from the UK? Are you aware of the stuff JK Rowling puts out? Did you follow the Tory leadership and the anti-trans views put by Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch? Not familiar with Rosie Duffield’s anti-trans nonsense?
I understand it’s more digestible to boil down complex issues to simple conclusions, but it weakens and cheapens the debate and serves no benefit in tackling issues.
Is your point just that most of those bad actors are women? I think we are in agreement on this fact. That’s what makes the polling data interesting, that the popular demographics do not necessarily match the demographics of the talking heads.
I’m not going to simplify it’s just women. There are a number of high profile anti-trans women campaigners that are absolutely a problem. With that, I’m sure there are many male public figures who are just as toxic.
I think it’s very easy to assume a lot of this comes from bad intentions, and some of it will. I think some of this may be somewhat innocent, but ultimately unhelpful. For example, cis males may be protective of their partners and daughters, and may be concerned because the risks have often been misrepresented, for example in the case of bathroom sharing. Obviously this is paternalistic, and many would construe this as patronising. Many women are confident and don’t see that issue, and don’t feel they need that protection. My feeling is part of this may come from a good place, intentions wise, but be completely misguided, and open to negative influence from people who are peddling negative and toxic views. I think this problem is quite complex, and as a result any one single approach will not work to solve the problem.
Edit: I noticed my other post got deleted. It seems ok to insinuate something about my motives, but when I reasonably respond and ask them same question, it’s censored and mod powers are used without hesitation. I don’t think rich debate can be had here and it’s not a place I want to be part of.
Your other post was removed because it was composed largely of ad hominem attacks against myself and logical fallacies used to claim this article excused transphobia by women.
If it’s the headline that bothers you I have to ask why? It does not make any generalized claims about men that are not backed up by self-reported polling.
Is legitimately a question looking for an answer. I did not mean to imply anything about your intentions.
I think this is a solid comment with a lot of insight. Thank you for sharing. You absolutely could have lead with this and it would have been the most well thought out and intentioned top level comment here.
Edit: It is worth noting however that the reasons you’ve listed are exactly why it’s important to flip the traditional terf narrative on it’s head. By claiming they are protecting women’s rights and spaces they are able to convince a large number of likely well intentioned men of hateful ideas. It is useful to point out that women as a demographic largely disagree so as to help them see the errors in that line of thinking.
“You absolutely could have lead with this”. You respond to the quality of information you get. The headline was clickbait rubbish, and yes it is triggering (because it is laced in prejudice). I think one of the worse problems as a man, is you’re regularly blamed for the sins of all other men, even if you are absolutely opposed to that. Being stereotyped based on your gender is not fun, and I think everyone needs to move away from that.
I think if you wanted to discuss the contents of it, you were better off changing the title and warning of the clickbaity cheap title. High brow titles don’t usually warrant low brow and nuanced responses.
you were better off changing the title and warning of the clickbaity cheap title
This is good feedback. I do hem and haw over titles quite a bit. I tend to worry that if I change them too much I will be accused of misleading folks. At the same time, I think you’re laying it on a little thick about the title. “[Demographic] drives [trend]” is a very normal headline and does not need to be taken as a personal attack. I will absolutely grant that those titles nearly always require qualification but I had hoped that this community would be exactly the sort of place where the contents of the comments could provide the depth and context the article needs to be useful in a broader discussion on masculinity.
It may be a very normal headline, but it is pretty inaccurate. An accurate title would be “anti-trans sentiment high, but higher amongst cis-males”. Even “anti-trans sentiment higher amongst cis-males” would be less galling.
“driving” “hostility” implies that cis men are actively pushing to make it worse. If anything, right-wingers pushing culture wars are driving it. Maybe men are falling for those tricks more.
If the community is growing, many will not know much about past content or the purpose of the community and any new post could be a first impression. Assuming past knowledge isn’t always a good idea.
This response to articles about polling and demographic data will never not strike me as extremely weird. Nobody is, by any means, generalizing men any more than the data itself would show. Note the article does not attempt to establish or perpetuate any stereotypes about men as a group, it is a fairly straightforward reading of the polling data. If it’s the headline that bothers you I have to ask why? It does not make any generalized claims about men that are not backed up by self-reported polling. I hate to keep having this fight, but this is increasingly becoming an issue and poses a threat to constructive discussion.
EDIT: If you are not certain why it is notable that men are the drivers of transphobia in this instance it is because most of the transphobic rhetoric in the country relies on claims of protecting women’s rights and spaces.
Removed by mod
“If you are not certain why it is notable that men are the drivers of transphobia in this instance it is because most of the transphobic rhetoric in the country relies on claims of protecting women’s rights and spaces.”
Are you from the UK? Are you aware of the stuff JK Rowling puts out? Did you follow the Tory leadership and the anti-trans views put by Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch? Not familiar with Rosie Duffield’s anti-trans nonsense?
I understand it’s more digestible to boil down complex issues to simple conclusions, but it weakens and cheapens the debate and serves no benefit in tackling issues.
Is your point just that most of those bad actors are women? I think we are in agreement on this fact. That’s what makes the polling data interesting, that the popular demographics do not necessarily match the demographics of the talking heads.
I’m not going to simplify it’s just women. There are a number of high profile anti-trans women campaigners that are absolutely a problem. With that, I’m sure there are many male public figures who are just as toxic.
I think it’s very easy to assume a lot of this comes from bad intentions, and some of it will. I think some of this may be somewhat innocent, but ultimately unhelpful. For example, cis males may be protective of their partners and daughters, and may be concerned because the risks have often been misrepresented, for example in the case of bathroom sharing. Obviously this is paternalistic, and many would construe this as patronising. Many women are confident and don’t see that issue, and don’t feel they need that protection. My feeling is part of this may come from a good place, intentions wise, but be completely misguided, and open to negative influence from people who are peddling negative and toxic views. I think this problem is quite complex, and as a result any one single approach will not work to solve the problem.
Edit: I noticed my other post got deleted. It seems ok to insinuate something about my motives, but when I reasonably respond and ask them same question, it’s censored and mod powers are used without hesitation. I don’t think rich debate can be had here and it’s not a place I want to be part of.
Your other post was removed because it was composed largely of ad hominem attacks against myself and logical fallacies used to claim this article excused transphobia by women.
Is legitimately a question looking for an answer. I did not mean to imply anything about your intentions.
Removed by mod
I think this is a solid comment with a lot of insight. Thank you for sharing. You absolutely could have lead with this and it would have been the most well thought out and intentioned top level comment here.
Edit: It is worth noting however that the reasons you’ve listed are exactly why it’s important to flip the traditional terf narrative on it’s head. By claiming they are protecting women’s rights and spaces they are able to convince a large number of likely well intentioned men of hateful ideas. It is useful to point out that women as a demographic largely disagree so as to help them see the errors in that line of thinking.
“You absolutely could have lead with this”. You respond to the quality of information you get. The headline was clickbait rubbish, and yes it is triggering (because it is laced in prejudice). I think one of the worse problems as a man, is you’re regularly blamed for the sins of all other men, even if you are absolutely opposed to that. Being stereotyped based on your gender is not fun, and I think everyone needs to move away from that.
I think if you wanted to discuss the contents of it, you were better off changing the title and warning of the clickbaity cheap title. High brow titles don’t usually warrant low brow and nuanced responses.
This is good feedback. I do hem and haw over titles quite a bit. I tend to worry that if I change them too much I will be accused of misleading folks. At the same time, I think you’re laying it on a little thick about the title. “[Demographic] drives [trend]” is a very normal headline and does not need to be taken as a personal attack. I will absolutely grant that those titles nearly always require qualification but I had hoped that this community would be exactly the sort of place where the contents of the comments could provide the depth and context the article needs to be useful in a broader discussion on masculinity.
I appreciate you took that feedback on board.
It may be a very normal headline, but it is pretty inaccurate. An accurate title would be “anti-trans sentiment high, but higher amongst cis-males”. Even “anti-trans sentiment higher amongst cis-males” would be less galling.
“driving” “hostility” implies that cis men are actively pushing to make it worse. If anything, right-wingers pushing culture wars are driving it. Maybe men are falling for those tricks more.
If the community is growing, many will not know much about past content or the purpose of the community and any new post could be a first impression. Assuming past knowledge isn’t always a good idea.
These are good suggestions. I’ll edit the title of the post.