How strange is it that a group of people which claims to be so incredibly oppressed has so much influence and backing? How odd that a movement made up predominantly of bio males would gain the most traction in the fastest amount of time of any social movement of the last century? This is the cover photo of the Government of Scotland’s twitter account. How bizarre and fascinating that apparently, transphobia is the country’s #1 greatest concern.
Really? Anyone shows support of trans people, then it shows we have influence and backing. Trump tries to erase trans people’s rights in the US and that’s totally fine, not evidence of any particular oppression or opinion, apparently.
If governments paying lip service meant that a marginalised group had influence and backing, then surely the White House being lit up in rainbow colours (after same sex marriage was legalised in the US) is evidence of influence and backing of the highest order! And how about business sponsorship of Pride events? And all that pinkwashing? It’s almost like governments and businesses use social movements for the sake of profit or public opinion (beauty product advertisements featuring diverse body types anyone?). And that (due in large part to transphobes) trans people have been in the spotlight lately, being topical and useful for political gain (it seems Scotland and the US are courting very different audiences with it).
And you really can’t recognise the impact social media has had on activism and visibility of marginalised groups in the last decade or so? Things are faster now, marginalised people have more of a voice, and are harder to ignore. The reason this seems to apply more to trans people is because of how little anyone knew or thought of us before that. If trans folks had loads of political backing (to the point of counteracting oppression), then where were we before the last decade or so? All I remember are some disgusting transmisogynistic movie/tv tropes. Hardly the stellar representation you’d expect of a profoundly influential group. Even now it’s not much better in media, if I’m honest. How come the movement for trans rights got started so late comparitively, if we have so much backing? Or did we just not exist until recently? It couldn’t possibly be that a group making up <1% of the population struggled to gain (positive) mainstream visibility until a useful tool like the internet appeared?
Plus, you can’t ignore the context here in the UK. There has been a lot of publicity around trans issues here lately, due to a huge campaign against a reform that would help trans people. There have been a lot of highly visible stunts, televised debates, interviews, articles, and even a tour opposing this reform. This topic is highly visible thanks to that, to the point that it might be beneficial (for a government) to pick a side. Supporting trans people is generally considered progressive (like supporting any marginalised group), and so to court that particular audience (as the SNP seems to do, in my understanding) seems like a politically useful idea right now. I don’t expect it to be more than lip service, but who knows. I have a lot more problems with the political situation in the UK than that right now, if I’m perfectly honest.
Honestly, you’re acting like you’ve uncovered a conspiracy, when it’s so obviously not the case if you just stop and think about context. Do you actually know any trans people in real life?
Making out that support for a marginalised group is a bad thing in the first place? Those are some interesting politics.
Simply put, if trans people had the influence and backing transphobic conspiracy theorists would have us believe this campaign would not be necessary.
Besides which, while transphobes get the cover photo, this campaign addresses bigots of all stripes:
and transphobes aren’t the only ones upset. There are posters in a similar vein in England reminding people that “it’s not just offensive, it’s an offence”. Why? Because hate crime is a significant problem in the UK.
But one shouldn’t indulge in the fallacy of believing what is (currently) most prominently addressed is the most significant concern, let alone make a conspiracy theory of it. (Similarly, one shouldn’t ignore the many trans people who aren’t “bio males” to support it.)
Damn, the original post is so quintessentially terfy. Pretending like Intitutions of Power taking sides in a very public battle about trans rights speaks of some sort of power trans people have, pretending like terfs don’t have the majority of british news media on their side, calling trans women “bio males” and erasing trans masc people by implying the movement is only made up of trans women, because that fits their narrative that the trans rights are misagonystic and helps them not talk about how their views ignore the agency and patronise trans men, who they see as part of the group they want to protect.
Such damn bigots.
