I went on a first date with someone extremely attractive. Put “moderate” on her profile, didn’t seem too bad. With no prompting from me whatsoever she brings up trans people and asks what I think. I say something along the lines of well I get it because as a guy if someone said I was biologically a girl I’d still be a guy inside. She said she wants kids and if the kids are trans she’d beat it out of them.
I mean she was hot enough that I had the thought that maybe I could change her. But I had to say no to a second date because there’s no way I could date someone who one date in is already negotiating how she’s going to beat my future kids for being themselves.
I hope you told her why?
I think that the point is not strictly about gender and transgender rights strictly. It is about the having the freedom to represent yourself as you wish in social situations, versus the right to… I’m… something about not having to see something you don’t understand… no, it’s to not have to challenge your definition of the world even if other people doagree with it. Hmm lemme think about it again.
Yeah but you gotta look at both sides of the argument.
(/s)
I see it as basically it comes down to common morals, character traits whatever.If someone you’re interested in wants to do the opposite of your preference in the way of rights for a specific set of people that’s probably not due to the specific group as it’s more a not seeing eye to eye on on rights issues and there would be more to come in that relationship.
I’m straight but if I met a girl (passed that time forever hopefully) and she didn’t want to give people the same rights as themselves, well yeah not going to be interested anymore. I don’t even need a qualifier on people, we’re all humans and deserve the same rights to love who we want and be the person we are (as long as it doesn’t infringe on others besides their ‘decency’)
I don’t know that they want to deny others a right that they want to allow themselves. I think they want to deny others a right that they want to deny everyone, even themselves.
And I’m one of them. There’s absolutely no way I would or even could ever date some loathsome piece of shit who opposes trans rights, supports Trump, defends the Capitol attack, opposes DEI, wants abortion banned or wants gender roles legislated.
If anything, I’m disappointed that there aren’t more of us.
Right?
I can’t imagine the kind of person that cares so little.
I can. I think they are my family. I just don’t hear their voices ever. Nevermind Trump support for a second, most of them do not support him. But, all I ever get is silence. I open my mouth, finally there’s pushback. Not necessarily that they are bigots, but they are more interested in order than justice, is my take. I can’t figure it out otherwise. Not without help.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
-Martin Luther King Jr
I’m just neurologically incapable of putting myself in their heads. I get that such moderates exist and always constitute a majority in the population, but I can’t understand them.
Order without justice is tyranny. If there is no justice, then the order is illegitimate by definition. Yet so many keep acting as if our government is legitimate despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
And I can’t even blame most of the opposition to reform because the propaganda and surveillance in this country is so thick it makes 1984 seem old-fashioned in comparison.
Yeah I mean how could you date, much less marry someone whose values are so out of whack with yours??
Glad I never had that problem. It’s like, just date cool people??
Yeah I mean how could you date, much less marry someone whose values are so out of whack with yours??
Because they lie.
A lot of straight conservative men know that many women do not want to date conservative men. They will not present themselves as conservative men, and instead will list themselves perhaps as “moderates” or “centrists” or otherwise “hide their power level.” This is true for conservative gay men as well, to a lesser extent.
People can be very good at hiding who they really are until the night after you get married. It’s terrifying.
Ok I may be stupid but how this still work now that we have legalized no fault divorce
Keep in mind, the fascists are trying to get rid of that, too.
No fault divorce doesn’t mean “instant and easy.” It just means you don’t have to give a reason. My divorce took about a year - although I guess that’s because after he kicked me out he refused to file and took my money lol.
What I don’t understand is why you would marry someone you hate. He had ‘No Children’ played at our wedding, despite me asking him not to.
Very good point =/ god I’m glad I never dated men
Some people are good at hiding their crazy. Luckily, MAGA types are generally pretty loud about their bigotry and never shut the hell up, so it’s easier to weed them out.
I find it hard to even work with those types of ppl, let alone date one.
I have two brothers who are variations on the theme.
I’m the oldest and middle brother is a longtime conspiracy theorist who’s on the anti-vaxx, deep state fringe (and at least pleasantly is notably not a bigot) and youngest is an IT guy and a stock,-standard tech “libertarian” who rages about wokeism and free speech and idolizes Musk and is about every kind of bigot imaginable.
So I spend holidays mostly hiding in the study, surfing the web and trying to ignore the bits of mansplained propaganda wafting down the hall…
That’s rough, sorry you have that problem. I have a similar thing with my mom and her trump loving b/f. The holidays usually last about 1 hour before I leave.
yUgh. That sounds even worse. You have my sympathy.
It’s a weird thing about this era. In the past, I would’ve tried to argue with them about their views, but at this point, it’s effectively impossible, since we don’t even share a reality. They live in a world in which, for instance, Kamala Harris is a DEI hire who got appointed as the candidate by Biden, who’ in turn is still working for the Obamas, and she lost because she’s a socialist.
Where do you even start with something like that?
Thanks, I have stopped even trying to make sense of their world. I just get up, say my good-bye to the rest of the family, and leave. It’s kinda all you can do, they will try to pull you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Your situation is bonkers for sure.
Seriously, being a bigot is a deal breaker.
Out of all those, I would be most open minded to someone who opposes DEI, since DEI is one particular strategy for combatting inequality and they might support another instead. I can’t steelman any of those other qualities though.
Opposing DEI is like opposing Gay Pride. There are many nefarious corporate influences weaponizing gay pride to the detriment of many lgbtq+ people and it makes sense for many of the parades to be boycotted on this basis. Many DEI programs can whitewash and excuse a lot of rascism induced issues people could face while providing a legal defense for the company to continue their racist practices. At the same time, I’m for gay pride and diversity, equity, and inclusion and would assume anyone who couldn’t explain their opposition to these concepts to be a bigot.
sure, but, we’re assuming here that the person can explain their perspective.
The assumption would be that unless they can explain it in a way that indicates their support of the rights of either affected group, they’re bigoted and not worth anything to anyone other than to the thought leaders they let think on their behalf and are using them to profit themselves. I’ll pity them as they are extremely pathetic and loathsome, but that’s as much as I’m willing to give them. There’s less than a percent chance that they’re simply misled and willing to have a good faith conversation about what they were taught, but short of that they’re easy to dismiss altogether in every way. This may sound harsh but I’m well past any patience I had for bigotry.
I would be open minded if only their opposition stemmed from misunderstanding what it was.
If I were to explain it, or point them in the direction of someone/something that explains it, and they’re still opposed? Yeah, that’s a deal-breaker.
I actually paused over that one myself, but while it is technically possible that someone could oppose DEI with the best of intentions, with the sincere belief that it’s an ineffective or even counter-productive strategy, I just think it’s orders of magnitude more likely that they oppose it because they’re racist filth.
But yeah - that’s one that I’d likely want to follow up on before a final decision.
I think you may be a bit polarized by social media on this issue. My dad (who doesn’t social media) watches MLK’s “I have a dream” speech every year. It’s no surprise that he’s not a fan of DEI, though it’s not like he complains about it.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about DEI. I like seeing more diversity on TV and such, but I think that it’s a better idea to focus on fixing inequality when people are young (e.g. in elementary school) than difficult-to-standardize hiring policies. Still, it’s better than no strategy, so I can’t say I’m “opposed” to it.
Probably.
Years ago, I was actually opposed to it myself (it was generally considered under the umbrella of Affirmative Action then) mostly because I saw it as a species of tokenism - a way to create the illusion of inclusion and diversity without the spirit of the thing.
But then I was confronted with a very compelling argument that basically held that it should be supported regardless of potential flaws because its long-term merits would oitweigh those flaws - it would condition people to see minorities in the workplace, and even in positions of power, as a common and unremarkable thing, and it would allow for new generations who would grow up already in that world because of their parents 'employment. Effectively, it wasn’t for the current generations, for whom it would necessarily be at least somewhat problematic, but for future generations.
That’s been my position ever since.
Somewhere along the way though - about the same time that “woke” became a pejorative, I started seeing a new rush of opposition to what was now known as DEI.
And the thing is that I never once saw a considered argument against it. All I saw was the new generation of overt racists - the people who fed exclusively on /pol/ and stormfront and AM talk radio and white supremacist podcasts - sneeringly referring to every minority in any notable position as a “DEI hire.”
But yes - maybe those who oppose it sincerely and with good intentions are out there and I just don’t see them.
I think woke becoming a pejorative (and the associated cultural shift) enabled people who were opposed to DEI (on the grounds that it’s affirmative action) to be more vocal in their opposition to it. Of course, overtly racist people oppose DEI most vocally. I’m not sure. Anyway, among actual humans I talk to who dislike DEI, they generally are not especially racist.
Anyway, that is a compelling argument, but on the other hand, it also normalizes the belief that diversity requires affirmative action, and it does not – equity is a fix for a symptom, but not the cure; it can be pre-empted by better equality earlier in the chain.
deleted by creator
It makes sense, how can one feel safe around a person who hates and sees other human beings as less than human? It’s almost impossible to feel safe around a person like that.
honestly I can’t tell whether a plurality of men think women are humans, let alone trans women …
EDIT:
Lesbian, gay and bisexual women overwhelmingly identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party over the GOP (83% vs. 12%). Similarly, the Democratic Party enjoys a wide advantage among gay and bisexual men (83% vs. 17%).
Straight men are more likely to associate with the Republican Party than straight women (55% vs. 47%).
(source)
Men generally, but straight (and married esp.) men, seem to be “the problem”.
- Supporting the democrats does not make you a safe person for some people, especially class conscious minorities and vulnerable people who were on the kill list long before Trump
- Capitalism and patriarchy are the problem not men.
- Blaming men as if they’re a monolithic effectively ignores the spectrum of gender that exists and further alienates people who haven’t had the chance to meet their own selves.
- Blaming men has become a terf dog whistle
pretty much agree with all of that 👍
Or, “the problem” is an uneducated electorate: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2024/11/08/men-and-white-people-vote-differently-based-education
Whether this is due to “book smarts” or just a statement that going to college means you meet different people and generally expands your worldview, it seems to make a difference (men still more problematic than women, but less so when educated!).
People are people. Treat them with decency and respect. ALL people. Not sure why that has to be considered a political view. I thought it was just being a good person.
Opposition to any cohort’s rights is a pretty clearcut indicator of very poor character.
For sure, but the people who feel the opposite in regards to trans people are so weird about it that it’s hard to imagine any of them being OK with dating a potential mate that would affirm a hypothetical trans kid.
and… Water is wet…
Do you think people who supported Civil rights in the 60s and 70s were off marrying people who opposed civil rights?
Cross politics marriages were more common in the past.
A lot of women married to get away from their parents and became homemakers. If husband was conservative but not abusive you might keep quiet about what you do in the voting booth for the sake of peace peace at home.
Liberal men might not ask about their fiances politics. If she is hot and willing a lot of young men.
I’m not saying it was ever healthy, but it was more common.
It’s framed as if this is a shocking thing. Someone who opposes trans rights is almost certainly going to be a right winger in general, so you would have a completely different worldview anyway.
For me the more interesting question would be “would you date someone who had exactly the same beliefs as you except on one single crucial issue?”
I kind of want to meet the person who agrees with me on all beliefs except trans rights. Like, how did they come to that conclusion when so many other things they support rely on having some basic empathy for people.
There are maybe some TERFs who take the radical feminism angle seriously. The idea is that they think trans people are transitioning because they identify more with stereotypes associated with the opposite sex.
In isolation, I think it would possible to come to the conclusion that trans men are “women trying to escape the patriarchy” and that trans women are “men unable to deal with internalized homophobia.” That a better solution would be to eliminate gender roles altogether.
This only really works if you never talk to trans people, and unfortunately it doesn’t seem that people who hold this view are often capable of changing their mind when presented with contradictory evidence.
And they assume trans lesbians are deranged predators.
You could ask my wife how much she feels like a victim.
Oh yeah, once I reveal that I’m a gay trans man and I’m not some lost sister, I am conversion therapy.
Thank God I’m married, not touching a bigot with 100 million meter pole.
yeah, that’s much to unwieldy to get a good swing in. 3 feet is about perfect for me, and I can pretend it’s a cane for plausible deniability.
Well duh, no bigots or fascists. Huge red flag about their whole personality.
Why would I ever want to be around someone who hates simply for the sake of hating?
Because people who oppose trans rights (or the rights of anyone for that matter) are fundamentally going to be pricks. This statistic is not solely about trans rights. Smart people with any sense of self preservation just don’t want to date bigots and assholes.
Some people aren’t malicious but just really dumb and careless and get their politics from passive cultural osmosis. Sometimes they even respond well to reeducation efforts
Don’t bang bigots. Simple as.
…did they expect people who care about human rights to be interested in romantic connections with Nazis?
looks at results
Oh. What the fuck? Why are those numbers so low?
To police something so personal as gender expression is anti-American. Obviously if you care so much about people’s private lives as to make it a part of your personality, you would have to be a huge piece of shit.
I rather think that’s why they’re made the outgroup du jour, people were too accepting of and familiar with LBG people, so they said let’s narrow WAAAAAAY down to the Trans people and divide and conquer the marginalized groups
