ColonizationHow can I date and find a boyfriend if I am a gay transgender man who doesn't pass...

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I guess all trans people can't be excluded from LGB because that is a generalization then, right?

That's not a "broad generalization," that's a boundary. Stating, "Hey, we think that LGB people should be able to have our own groups that aren't centered around trans issues" makes no assumptions or judgments about the characteristics of the people involved; it is simply expression of a desire (and a reasonable one at that!).

A "broad generalization" is a statement about the fundamental characteristics of a group and this type of all-or-nothing, "black and white thinking" statement statements is not conducive to critical thinking. It's commonly described as a cognitive distortion (see the "overgeneralization" section). People don't have to use cognitive distortions in order to be able to think!

[–]stunaep 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

https://researchtopractice.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/the-importance-of-generalizations-in-social-studies/

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That article supports my point. (Not sure if you linked it with the goal of rebuttal, or if you were just linking it because it's relevant.) It provides some guidelines about what sort of generalizations ought to be made, because not all generalizations are made the same; some are accurate, and some are not! Again-- I'm talking about "broad generalizations," that is, overly broad generalizations.

Note that the article distinguishes between context-specific facts and context-generalizable concepts:

The authors suggest that a critical component to understanding the need for generalizations is the ability to discern between fact and concept.

When someone takes a fact that's time-bounded or location-bounded and suggests that it applies everywhere, that's an example of an overly-broad generalization.

[–]stunaep 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And hetero/bihet men and women have been this way since at least the beginning of written history. So it's not overly-broad.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think it's safe to say that many men and women throughout history have been fetishistic and homophobic at various points in their lives; in that sense, I agree with what you're saying. But like I said about the quote above: to imply that women, generally speaking, are "fetishistic and homophobic" by nature and/or unavoidably so, or to imply that all women have these traits, is an overly broad generalization according to the definition I provided. It's a pretty big claim that requires some big evidence, and I haven't seen any yet on this thread.

I think we're at a standstill here. Have a good one.

[–]stunaep 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You added the "by nature" part. The cause of this phenomenon was not mentioned, and though it's hardly relevant, the reason why is a combination of biological and sociological factors. Fetishism aside, if you do not agree that the majority of hetero/bihet men and women are at least homophobic, then I suppose we live in two different worlds.

I've been dismissed lmaoooo