this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
402 points (87.8% liked)

Trans Memes

3058 readers
295 users here now

A place to post memes relating to the transgender experience.

Rules

  1. Follow lemmy.blahaj.zone community guidelines.
  2. Posts must be trans related.
  3. No bigotry.
  4. Do not post or link to pornography.
  5. If a post is tagged with a specific gender identity, keep the conversation centered on that identity.
  6. Posts that assume the viewer’s gender and/or contain potentially triggering content must be spoilered and tagged at the beginning of the post title. Example content-warning tags that you can copy include the following:
  1. Mods can be arbitrary.

Because it apparently has to be said, this community is supportive of all forms of DIY HRT.

Recommendations

  1. Include other tags in posts for example:
  1. Include image description when possible.
  2. Link to source

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I understand what you are saying. The issue is if someone were to say, using the example, "I don't think we should use animal based hormones" without a qualifier they run the risk of having to fight off allegations of not supporting or discriminating against trans people when that clearly isn't what they belive.

So they start with the qualifier. However now people claim that is disingenuous.

Honestly it's something I've seen develop more and more over the years. People like to ignore all of the context of any given conversation.

Obviously if the qualifier is followed with something actually unsupportive you're right, but based on the comic we'll never get to know what that but was.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I tend to be the sort that if I voice something akin to this subject and it gets twisted into an allegation, I'm going to explain what I mean more fully, or determine if the person just has an axe to grind, or at least take the time to examine their take and see if I should change my thinking on a subject. If they just have an axe to grind, I'm out because I don't have patience for zealots. If it was a misunderstanding, then it's easy to fix. It is also entirely possible that someone could come up with something I hadn't considered.

I'm old as fuck though. It makes me a bit more willing to listen than when I was younger and might have gotten het up over someone bringing up a tangent to a big issue. And, I'm also less willing to tolerate when someone is just looking for an argument by throwing an allegation and assuming the worst rather than just talking like a decent human being. I'm too old to argue with a zealot, so I just walk away. Even online, I have to be in a foul mood before I'll give energy to someone that's not acting in good faith with me as a fellow human being. In meat space, I have body language, tone and such to help make that determination, so I tend to walk away quicker (though often with an eye roll and some muttering about wasted time.)

Legit though, in the comic's scenario, there would be nothing that could come after the "but" that would be germaine. Hypothetically, yeah, a person could be coming up with something that wasn't going to negate the original statement. It just doesn't work out that way when it comes to discussion of marginalized peoples. Like, since I first became aware of humans being shitty to groups of humans they don't like, it's a thing. Nobody ever throws out "I support gays, but...", or "black people deserve civil rights, but..." without following up with something that works against their previous statement.

Folks bringing up stuff like your example? They're not going to say it the same way. "But" is used in a way that negates more often than not, and when it's about supporting a marginalized group, I have never seen anyone throw a but without negating their supposed support. Worse, it's fairly common in my experience that the "but" ends up being a dog whistle or outright bigoted.

Going back to the vegan example (and let me interject that this conversation has been really awesome, I love it when people engage the way you are), if someone says "but animal hormones", they're effectively saying that their belief in appropriate manufacture of medical products is more important than the rights of trans people to access gender affirming care.

If they didn't think that, they'd most likely, go with "and it sucks that trans people have reduced access to ethically sourced hormones". It's a different way of thinking about a given issue. There's ways to expand a conversation to include one's related thoughts without using a negating conjunction. You know in role play and improv, there's a guiding principle of "yes, and" instead of "yes, but"? It applies in this kind of situation, with the choice of but rather than and pointing to a less humorous situation.

Like, in running over this example, if I had an objection to the source of the hormones, my way of expressing it would come out "I support trans people. I really wish the pharmaceutical industry would support them in a way that reduces harm to animals as well. We can have both." That's the phrasing that came into my head when I put myself in that hypothetical vegan's place.

It's a different way of communication, it's a different way of thinking.