you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

5) Is it okay to invalidate someone's gender identity? Wouldn't invalidating someone's gender identity be lgbtphobic? If no, can you explain why?

I think this sentence "Wouldn't invalidating someone's gender identity be lgbtphobic?" makes more sense as "wouldn't invalidating someone's gender identity make you a bad person?" That's all the word "phobic" seems to represent anymore. Similarly, "invalidating" has also lost it's meaning and I believe the most correct equivalent would be "making people feel bad".

If someone who is female, looks like a female, acts like a female, but doesn't feel like or "identify as" a female and wants they/them pronouns, nothing here says that they actually aren't female. If someone feels more like a man or woman day to day, they aren't actually more of a man or woman day to day.

So, the question appears as follows. Is it okay to make an LGBT feel bad? Are you a bad person for doing something (not using the pronouns of choice) that makes people feel bad?

No, because making somebody feel bad isn't the same as being hateful. If I said your cooking tastes bad and you felt bad about that, that doesn't make me a bad person. Doesn't even make me a rude person. If you prided yourself on being a great chef and I challenged your belief, that would probably be hurtful to your ego. But that statement hurting your ego does not mean you are actually a good cook.

Asking people to keep up with they/them pronouns or call a blatant male in both appearance and demeanor "she" is like saying this: "this person feels like they're a good cook. If you tell them they aren't a good cook, or you don't eat the food they make, or even if you say anything that isn't positive, you're a bad person. If you don't, you're either lacking basic respect, or you're responsible if they feel so bad they kill themselves."

Well, I can't do that. I don't respect people whose egos are so fragile that they can't handle basic facts. And I won't tolerate suicide baiting as a form of guilting me into doing something. If that makes me phobic, fine, but I think that's a really bad idea. Homosexuality is still illegal in 73 countries and if you want to disown everyone who thinks they/them is 'invalid', expect to make no progress on actually advancing gay rights where it matters the most.

https://www.newsweek.com/73-countries-where-its-illegal-be-gay-1385974

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Similarly, "invalidating" has also lost it's meaning and I believe the most correct equivalent would be "making people feel bad".

From what I've seen, it just seems to mean not supporting anyone unconditionally. It's the woke purity spiral of not debating and simply conforming to "be nice" - it doesn't have to be a question that makes anyone feel bad.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pretty much. And the person gets to decide how much you invalidated them. Also "being nice" or "respectful" or "tolerant" in these contexts is so fucking fake. It actually means "permissible" aka being a pushover with no boundaries.