536
Non-Conditional
(quokk.au)
A place to post memes relating to the transgender experience.
Rules
[CW: Assumes Viewer is Transmasc][CW: Assumes Viewer is Transfem][CW: Assumes Viewer is Nonbinary][CW: Transphobia][CW: Violence][CW: Weapons/Firearms][CW: Disturbing Imagery]Because it apparently has to be said, this community is supportive of all forms of DIY HRT.
Recommendations
[Transfem/Transmasc/Non-binary]
That's because IRL the context of "but" s doesn't usually go like this when there's a legitimate argument. The point of the comic is not blindly following trans people.
"I support trans people, but X" tends to have transphobic sentiment, even if X could be valid. In your example, many medicines are animal-derived or tested on animals. Focusing on addressing trans prople on this topic is usually a choice.
If you have these views, the context you would usually express them is not addressing trans people, but your message would probably be "I oppose people taking animal-derived medicines even if it improves their health".
Another simplified example. Let's say there's a grifter, scammer, scummy trans person, Alice. If you want to denounce Alice, you'd say "Alice is a scammer, xyz, don't use her as positive trans representation" in a forum, discussion, post, etc. You'd probably not start with "I support trans people, but some of them are scammers like Alice". Imagine how weird that would sound with other minority or opressed groups (women, black, gay, etc).
By the way: I don't know if you're vegan, but most vegans don't share your views on animal-derived or tested medicine (even the Vegan Society definition accepts these medicines). I'd suggest you find another term so you don't misrepresent veganism, like "ethical" or "[strict] animal rights" beliefs. I don't want to invalidate or debate your beliefs but calling it veganism is just not accurate.
Exactly, this is in the manipulators playbook:
"I have nothing against X, but have you seen Y?!",
Y is very tangentially related to X, and should be addressed on its own, but is used to intentionally "smear" the bad reputation onto X.
These "buts" do not come from allies.
Sorry did not want to make animals/vegans an issue, I was a vegan for a while but not anymore, not really my issue, I just wanted to make a shitty argument, not to try and denounce the logic of the comic but more to say there should not be bans on all viewpoints.
Honestly I agree with your point fully, I get what the comic was saying, there should not be conditions on support, but I do believe like stopping a conversation may not open the opportunity to help correct or inform someone (ok you won't reach everyone and some are way too invested to learn and grow unfortunately).
And thank you for calling me out, my argument was wrong trying to assert one viewpoint into another, I promise I am not trying to be malicious or anything, also wasn't trying to represent any vegans, sorry to all vegans that took offence, also did not try and force a misrepresentation onto them(I know some vegans that do have the viewpoint that animal-derived medicines are an issue but that is their own individual beliefs but that ). But it is as others said not my core of my idea, I think people should be open to having conversations to identify a possible shortcoming in beliefs and then be open to have that explained and hopefully grow.
Continue defending what is right and thank you for the long message to explain my argument's shortcoming (sorry again for the shitty example) and thank you for engaging me.