Can anyone explain “trans ideology” to me? Seems as though it involves using the dictionary/medical definitions for words like sex, gender, trans, etc. rather than weird appeals to intuition.
Bonus points if you can give a definition of “woke” as used by conservatives.
Lemme preface that this is all devil’s advocacy. I am putting my 4Chan whisperer skills to use here, not endorsing anything.
Let’s lay down some tentative defintions:
“trans ideology” as used on 4chan/conservative spaces is typically referring to strictly “self-id” definitions of trans, as in “not identifying with their assigned gender”.
Most 4channers are trans-medicalist at the very least, if not outright deniers of the whole concept. In their eyes being trans is either a mental or neurological illness/disorder (gender dysphoria), and building an identity around that is just more proof of that, the same way that a man who believes he is Napoleon builds an identity around it, but is still crucially not Napoleon.
Given this core point, “being trans” in this context of “trans ideology” means “identifying as trans”, regardless of meeting any specific criteria, the same way that “being a woman” simply means “identifying as a woman”. Hence why nonbinary/genderfluid people fall in the trans umbrella without suffering from any condition or needing anything beyond their say so. Transmedicalists would at the very least not consider them the same kind of trans (often specifying a difference by using the “transsexual” and “transgender” monickers differently to highlight that)
It therefore stands to reason that one could have gender dysphoria, and even be on HRT, but not identify as trans.
Meaning you could fit the trans-medicalist defintion of trans, but not be trans by “trans ideology” standards since you identify as cis, hence the “trans ideology finally ouroborosing” comment at the end, since anon is using “trans ideology” rules to refuse being categorised as trans.
Bonus points if you can give a definition of “woke” as used by conservatives.
Ok this one is harder but I can give you a charitable definition that would fit most cases AND also help you identify when people use “woke” and mean it, as opposed to simply grifting.
The piece of media needs to be both progressive in message and focusing on said message before any concerns for it being an actually competently told story or entertaining at all.
For instance, Lady Ballers is not woke, not because it isn’t focussed on messaging before being a competent piece of entertainment, but because it’s not focussed on progressive messaging.
(I would caution that anyone who does not correctly identify it as spine-implodingly-cringe is a brainrotten partisan hack.)
The problem with the conservative brand of brainrot is that they see any progressive messaging or casting as intrinsically counter-factual and therefore forced, breaking their suspension of disbelief and thus making anything “too progressive” immediately fail the smell test of not being about the message first.
A good example of this short circuit was the (very minor) uproar around The Sandman tv adaptation, where people were complaining about netflix making Death a black actress and adding random lesbians, when the aforementioned lesbian characters are canonical to the comic and no endless character in the show has its comic book accurate white skin. (Dream and 3 other endless have an unnatural “empty page” white skin, not “white people” pink)
Viceversa a good example of using “woke” to describe something that is poorly made because it does not care to be otherwise, since the point is the message and the effect this story is supposed to have on society, not it being a high quality product is definitely the Rings of Power show.
The show completely flaunts established canon, flattens Galadriel into a generic Joan D’Arc analogue, and you could argue the company knew this was going to go down like a lead baloon, since they were running “the series is good but bigots will hate it” astroturfing for months before release, to shield themselves from very valid criticism about both the quality of the writing and its consistency with established LOTR lore.
Can anyone explain “trans ideology” to me? Seems as though it involves using the dictionary/medical definitions for words like sex, gender, trans, etc. rather than weird appeals to intuition.
Bonus points if you can give a definition of “woke” as used by conservatives.
Lemme preface that this is all devil’s advocacy. I am putting my 4Chan whisperer skills to use here, not endorsing anything.
Let’s lay down some tentative defintions:
Most 4channers are trans-medicalist at the very least, if not outright deniers of the whole concept. In their eyes being trans is either a mental or neurological illness/disorder (gender dysphoria), and building an identity around that is just more proof of that, the same way that a man who believes he is Napoleon builds an identity around it, but is still crucially not Napoleon.
It therefore stands to reason that one could have gender dysphoria, and even be on HRT, but not identify as trans.
Meaning you could fit the trans-medicalist defintion of trans, but not be trans by “trans ideology” standards since you identify as cis, hence the “trans ideology finally ouroborosing” comment at the end, since anon is using “trans ideology” rules to refuse being categorised as trans.
Ok this one is harder but I can give you a charitable definition that would fit most cases AND also help you identify when people use “woke” and mean it, as opposed to simply grifting.
Media is “woke” when it is transparently trying to push a progressive political agenda before being a competent piece of entertainment.
The piece of media needs to be both progressive in message and focusing on said message before any concerns for it being an actually competently told story or entertaining at all.
For instance, Lady Ballers is not woke, not because it isn’t focussed on messaging before being a competent piece of entertainment, but because it’s not focussed on progressive messaging.
(I would caution that anyone who does not correctly identify it as spine-implodingly-cringe is a brainrotten partisan hack.)
The problem with the conservative brand of brainrot is that they see any progressive messaging or casting as intrinsically counter-factual and therefore forced, breaking their suspension of disbelief and thus making anything “too progressive” immediately fail the smell test of not being about the message first.
A good example of this short circuit was the (very minor) uproar around The Sandman tv adaptation, where people were complaining about netflix making Death a black actress and adding random lesbians, when the aforementioned lesbian characters are canonical to the comic and no endless character in the show has its comic book accurate white skin. (Dream and 3 other endless have an unnatural “empty page” white skin, not “white people” pink)
Viceversa a good example of using “woke” to describe something that is poorly made because it does not care to be otherwise, since the point is the message and the effect this story is supposed to have on society, not it being a high quality product is definitely the Rings of Power show.
The show completely flaunts established canon, flattens Galadriel into a generic Joan D’Arc analogue, and you could argue the company knew this was going to go down like a lead baloon, since they were running “the series is good but bigots will hate it” astroturfing for months before release, to shield themselves from very valid criticism about both the quality of the writing and its consistency with established LOTR lore.
Alright, I’m done effortposting.
I really enjoyed your explanation, thanks for the effortpost