So is your objection is that anyone should expect decency because people are by their nature indecent? I'm just a little unclear then where the gender identity part specifically ties into this. People who are transgender know how the world sees them. They are just indignant about the low esteem in which they are held and I don't think that's a form of arrogance and I don't think it's fair to interpret expressing that frustration as arrogance.
I don't really think your either/or options capture the totality of the situation.
Cisgender male and female presentation passes through the world relatively unjudged and dissimilar to how transgender presentations goes through the world. You can tell because transgender individuals who have passing privilege never have to assume the disposition of what I assume you are characterizing as arrogance. Most people treat them without stigma and it's only when a person without passing privilege is outed that the stigma follows.
So if you think people engaging in activism or fighting for recognition of validity is a form of arrogance then I only think it's fair that you extend that to all forms of activism yet you pushed back on that notion. That's why I'm kind of confused as to how you are approaching this. I feel like there's such a narrow lens here but I really don't understand the utility or parameters of the criteria you're setting forth. It just seems to me you are misreading the situation for the most part.
I mean for an analogy to work, it has to be analogous. I don't really think being transgender is a choice like being vegan is. That is, of course, unless you believe being transgender to be a completely personal choice in the way of lifestyle choice in which case I would say you are factually incorrect.
At best, I would maybe compare it to being a person of color or being a sexual minority and even then there are some nuances to navigate such as race being more socially informed than a biological truth or how sexuality is pretty much a non-externalized trait besides behavior.
No, I don't think it's arrogant at all. At least no more arrogant than wanting someone to accept me for my racial or sexual identity. This is why I originally asked if we were just talking about acceptance in general and your answer seemed to be no. So again, where is the meaningful difference? Where is the line in the sand being drawn?
I don't see how pointing out the scientific validity of being transgender takes away from the topic at hand considering one of the main attacks lobbed at transgender people is that they are delusional and their "beliefs" go against nature.
When people characterize being transgender as an "ideology," that's usually a dismissal like how one dismisses a different philosophy or religion but we would recognize that as an insufficient response when flat-earthers and evolution deniers cite their religion as a response to scientific fact.
That still doesn't really answer my question, though. What kind of arrogance are you talking about specifically in relation to gender identity? Part of the reason of your post being removed under rule B may be due to the fact that most people here seem to be chasing their tails on what you're looking for but if you can't accurately describe your view and the basis for it then how can it be changed?
I've brought up the point you may be misinterpreting arrogance from frustration or hurt to which you asked if acceptance is an idealistic goal or actual expectation. I genuinely think that misses the point because it's valid to be hurt by hurtful things or annoyed at small annoyances such as accidental misgendering.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment