@goatsarah I don't see how this makes sense. It's perfectly possible for someone to be transphobic but have perfectly healthy and normal relationships with anyone who isn't trans. It seems quite the leep to say look how he mistreats trans people, he must, therefore, mistreat people who are not trans.
@JustinMac84 @goatsarah To be transphobic, one must lack the ability or willingness to extend empathy to those whose lives are unlike one’s own, and to treat them as full and complete human beings.
This failure is mirrored in misogyny, whether the person recognizes it as such or not. “Treating them right”, when you can’t understand how THEY wish to be treated, is merely “commit no obvious violence towards them”, but it is not “respect their personhood”.
@WhiteCatTamer @goatsarah One can be racist without being sexist, homophobic without being xenophobic, transphobic without being homophobic. To say you are one therefore you must be all is nonsense. If someone, for whatever reason, has it in for trans people, it does not follow that he has it in for sys people of a different genda.
@JustinMac84 @goatsarah Bigotry is based in a lack of empathy paired with a background hum of discrimination as the person moves through society, and part of that discrimination is a failure to recognize what IS discrimination. It rarely keeps to its own little box.
You are approaching this from an active and aware kind of hatred perspective - “has it in for” - which is not how many bigots act; they defend themselves as not -ist all the time.
@WhiteCatTamer @goatsarah All agreed with, but none of that proves that just because you are unwhittingly one thing, you are also that other thing. It's the labelling someone as such with no evidence other than their behaviour in another, related but different, area, that I take strong issue with. Let's come at this from another angle. A sys woman mistreates a trans woman because of their identity. Would you say she's missoginistic to sys women?
@goatsarah @WhiteCatTamer I think you're taking issue with the second "their" of my post this references. I was thinking woman/women in my head, since we're not talking about the choice to mistreat an individual, rather the choice to mistreat an individual based on their membership of a group, making it likely they'd do the same with any group member. which there wasn't space to write. Apologies for the lack of clarity, if I have you write.
@JustinMac84 @goatsarah What OP is pointing out is that, in this example, you talk about two individuals, and use two pronouns: “she” for the cis woman, and “their” for the trans woman.
@WhiteCatTamer @goatsarah Clarified in previous post. Realistically, the type of man we're talking about here isn't going to go after just one trans woman if it's because she's trans or because she's a woman. So we're looking at plural mistreatment here. Question at hand is whether two subgroups will definitely be mistreated because one is.
@goatsarah @WhiteCatTamer Clarified in previous post.