Trans folks are such a small sliver of the population, it’s very difficult for most people to know a trans person.
On top of this, many trans people try to live “stealth” so they’re not harassed for simply existing.
It’s sad, because this is a known phenomenon. It’s the “why” of why LGB acceptance has grown in the last several decades, it turns out when friends and loved ones are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, it becomes something people are more willing to accept.
LGB is about 3.5% of the population while T is about 0.3%.
It’s so much harder for people to meet a trans person to begin with, just based on numbers. This puts trans people at a natural disadvantage in being able to grow acceptance in society.
Now this is where I put on my tinfoil fucking hat.
I feel like conservatives chose trans people as a target because they know this, too. They know the small numbers mean acceptance will be an even slower and harder road than for the LGB part of the community. They’re fucking banking on it, so they can continue to sew division and hate.
Neat, but the question is: Are there more openly LGBTQ+ people because their numbers are simply growing, or is it a function of society becoming more accepting, so fewer feel a reason to hide it most of their lives? (my bet is on the latter)
Secondly, even with the increase in trans population, you’re still looking at a way smaller T community than LGB, which still makes acceptance an uphill battle for trans identities.
It’s definitely the latter, the common analogy is to left-handedness and acceptance. Anyone who works in queer health or population health is very familiar with stigmatization vs. identification and under-reporting issues.
I feel like conservatives chose trans people as a target because they know this, too. They know the small numbers mean acceptance will be an even slower and harder road than for the LGB part of the community. They’re fucking banking on it, so they can continue to sew division and hate.
I’m sure this was a deliberate choice since they lost on gay acceptance. They are using the same techniques and talking points as well. It’s also backlash since there was more acceptance in some circles and had to jump on it before it became widespread since most people haven’t thought about it before. Got to get that indoctrination in first or else it won’t stick
Very much on point, and this is where the age-old tension between “a duty to come out” versus “a right to choose if and when” remains still relevant.
I do not want to take the position that there is such a duty, but I have to admit that I’m uneasy that our 2010s-present queer media does not even acknowledge the tension.
I think we should normalize referring to people who are straight but haven’t explicitly told people they’re straight as not having “come out” as straight. It’s a heteronormative bias. If anything we actually don’t know if they’re straight. More importantly, I think it helps illustrate the bizarre nature of the “duty to come out” as you call it.
Number of times I’ve been party to conversations where the prevailing attitude was that because someone didn’t announce themselves as gay, then they couldn’t possibly be gay.
“Were you talking about sexuality at any point?”
“Had they been attracting the interest of the opposite sex, or same sex for that matter?”
“Was there any conversation or non-verbal interaction where their sexuality might have been vaguely relevant?”
“Did you declare your own sexuality to them?”
“Yeah, but that’s different!”
Fuckers never can explain what they think is different about it, funnily enough.
See also: straight people getting in a lather because a gay person is flirting with someone of the opposite sex.
Plus, sexuality is really apparent when you see couples; two guys who are together are clearly not straight - you don’t need to get to know either of them to know that.
However, the point for most trans people is that they want to pass, and just live as the gender that corresponds to their gender identity. If they pass it’s just not apparent they’re trans until you get to know them - even leaving the stealth aspect aside.
It wouldn’t surprise me. They did this with abortion rights. The American right used the topic to scare the evangelicals into becoming an ally. “Pro life” and all the rhetoric around calling abortion murder is nothing short of marketing genius. (Evil genius.) How can you even begin to respond to it? You can tell them that abortion isn’t murder until you’re blue in the face and even if you convince someone all they have to do is find folks on the fence and tell them “the left is murdering babies” and they’re on board. It’s so direct. Why would you want to side with the “baby murderers”? More importantly, why would you miss an election? The left are “murderers” sent by “demons” and will take office if you don’t act.
Trans folks are such a small sliver of the population, it’s very difficult for most people to know a trans person.
On top of this, many trans people try to live “stealth” so they’re not harassed for simply existing.
It’s sad, because this is a known phenomenon. It’s the “why” of why LGB acceptance has grown in the last several decades, it turns out when friends and loved ones are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, it becomes something people are more willing to accept.
LGB is about 3.5% of the population while T is about 0.3%.
It’s so much harder for people to meet a trans person to begin with, just based on numbers. This puts trans people at a natural disadvantage in being able to grow acceptance in society.
Now this is where I put on my tinfoil fucking hat.
I feel like conservatives chose trans people as a target because they know this, too. They know the small numbers mean acceptance will be an even slower and harder road than for the LGB part of the community. They’re fucking banking on it, so they can continue to sew division and hate.
If you’re talking about the US, those figures are out of date 1 2 3
Also a little over 4 in 10 Americans say they personally know a trans person
Neat, but the question is: Are there more openly LGBTQ+ people because their numbers are simply growing, or is it a function of society becoming more accepting, so fewer feel a reason to hide it most of their lives? (my bet is on the latter)
Secondly, even with the increase in trans population, you’re still looking at a way smaller T community than LGB, which still makes acceptance an uphill battle for trans identities.
It’s definitely the latter, the common analogy is to left-handedness and acceptance. Anyone who works in queer health or population health is very familiar with stigmatization vs. identification and under-reporting issues.
Yoooo, didn’t you use to be active on /r/CenturyClub? I recognise your username, though I wouldn’t expect you to remember mine.
long time ago, yes. bbhh
I’m sure this was a deliberate choice since they lost on gay acceptance. They are using the same techniques and talking points as well. It’s also backlash since there was more acceptance in some circles and had to jump on it before it became widespread since most people haven’t thought about it before. Got to get that indoctrination in first or else it won’t stick
Very much on point, and this is where the age-old tension between “a duty to come out” versus “a right to choose if and when” remains still relevant.
I do not want to take the position that there is such a duty, but I have to admit that I’m uneasy that our 2010s-present queer media does not even acknowledge the tension.
I think we should normalize referring to people who are straight but haven’t explicitly told people they’re straight as not having “come out” as straight. It’s a heteronormative bias. If anything we actually don’t know if they’re straight. More importantly, I think it helps illustrate the bizarre nature of the “duty to come out” as you call it.
Jfc this one drives me nuts.
Number of times I’ve been party to conversations where the prevailing attitude was that because someone didn’t announce themselves as gay, then they couldn’t possibly be gay.
“Were you talking about sexuality at any point?”
“Had they been attracting the interest of the opposite sex, or same sex for that matter?”
“Was there any conversation or non-verbal interaction where their sexuality might have been vaguely relevant?”
“Did you declare your own sexuality to them?”
“Yeah, but that’s different!”
Fuckers never can explain what they think is different about it, funnily enough.
See also: straight people getting in a lather because a gay person is flirting with someone of the opposite sex.
Plus, sexuality is really apparent when you see couples; two guys who are together are clearly not straight - you don’t need to get to know either of them to know that.
However, the point for most trans people is that they want to pass, and just live as the gender that corresponds to their gender identity. If they pass it’s just not apparent they’re trans until you get to know them - even leaving the stealth aspect aside.
Re: tinfoil hat,
It wouldn’t surprise me. They did this with abortion rights. The American right used the topic to scare the evangelicals into becoming an ally. “Pro life” and all the rhetoric around calling abortion murder is nothing short of marketing genius. (Evil genius.) How can you even begin to respond to it? You can tell them that abortion isn’t murder until you’re blue in the face and even if you convince someone all they have to do is find folks on the fence and tell them “the left is murdering babies” and they’re on board. It’s so direct. Why would you want to side with the “baby murderers”? More importantly, why would you miss an election? The left are “murderers” sent by “demons” and will take office if you don’t act.