You can choose the impact of the statement, I know it’s intent. As would any reasonable person who is familiar with this individual. You’re defending a person who uses those labels as a defense for predatory behavior. They RAPED their own mother and successfully used autism as a defense in court to get the charges dropped. They also have a very shaky history as to why they identify as trans (believing lesbians would be more accepting and they’d have an easier time finding a girlfriend, as well as an easier way to deflect hate). I do believe they are probably genuinly trans but it murky and absolutely 100% part of the story as is autism.
The labels factually have been and are likely currently being used by the individual to commit predatory behavior in this specific case. Which is all I’m talking about. They used the fact that they are trans as a shield when they engaged in posting non consensual sexual drawings of irl people they knew. As well as floating the idea of becoming trans in order to sleep with women and avoid criticism. They used being autistic as a successful legal tactic to skirt a sex crime in the rape of their mother. You’re saying these should be omitted when talking about them though? Because bringing it up would be bigotry?
Please explain why or how this identifying of transphobia is not directly an attempt to defend Chris, IN THIS CONTEXT, to someone who is autistic, or who may even suffer from some obstinent defiant disorder. FYI:
Some people aren’t hardwired for policing others’ verbiage or for having their own language “policed”, and I think that you are using your best methods you know, but tone of a written message often comes across in whatever way is most convenient to a given reader, which is what I think might be contributing some to the source of the problem (in this miscommunication). Could you format your statement that went along the lines of “don’t mirror transphobic language if you don’t want to appear transphobic” in a way that uses the words “should” and “if” in the same sentence? I find often that such a structure can address matters of internal perspective without presenting an imposing presence to the conversation or dialogue.
You chose to list “trans” and “autistic” in the middle of a list of abhorrent behaviors/traits about Chris. Get real.
Leaving things borderline unambiguous like this is how transphobes speak. If you’re not, I don’t recommend mirroring them. 🤷🏼♀️
You can choose the impact of the statement, I know it’s intent. As would any reasonable person who is familiar with this individual. You’re defending a person who uses those labels as a defense for predatory behavior. They RAPED their own mother and successfully used autism as a defense in court to get the charges dropped. They also have a very shaky history as to why they identify as trans (believing lesbians would be more accepting and they’d have an easier time finding a girlfriend, as well as an easier way to deflect hate). I do believe they are probably genuinly trans but it murky and absolutely 100% part of the story as is autism.
I’m not defending Chris. I’m pointing at transphobic commentary. Get over yourself.
You’re ignoring context and nuance as a way to be offended. You’re the one that needs to get over yourself lmfao.
The context being? A. The person is behaving in an abhorrent way B. The person is identifying as trans C. A & B
Which is it?
Funny when a person acts badly, some people always have to bring up additional labels.
They’re bad, and gay. They’re bad, and a Jew. They’re bad, and a muslim. Etc.
You are just showing your own bigotry. Lmfao.
The labels factually have been and are likely currently being used by the individual to commit predatory behavior in this specific case. Which is all I’m talking about. They used the fact that they are trans as a shield when they engaged in posting non consensual sexual drawings of irl people they knew. As well as floating the idea of becoming trans in order to sleep with women and avoid criticism. They used being autistic as a successful legal tactic to skirt a sex crime in the rape of their mother. You’re saying these should be omitted when talking about them though? Because bringing it up would be bigotry?
I identify as not a bigot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_activism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_(psychoanalysis) [what is the point in sharing wikipedia links again? I forgot]
And I wouldn’t recommend defending Chris chan who is a horrid person who uses their labels to attack others and to hide from repercussions.
It makes you look like a biggot.
Nobody is defending Chris from what I’ve seen.
They’re merely pointing out that including “trans” in the list of negative traits about Chris makes OP appear transphobic.
Hmmm, you’re presenting as autophobic, this is problematic.
You just couldn’t type that trait out, could you? Too afraid of autism. Sad.
You also excluded “mentally ill” from your list… as if it was not worth a mention. Dementophobia
If you think identifying transphobia is to defend Chris, you’re the problem.
Please explain why or how this identifying of transphobia is not directly an attempt to defend Chris, IN THIS CONTEXT, to someone who is autistic, or who may even suffer from some obstinent defiant disorder. FYI: Some people aren’t hardwired for policing others’ verbiage or for having their own language “policed”, and I think that you are using your best methods you know, but tone of a written message often comes across in whatever way is most convenient to a given reader, which is what I think might be contributing some to the source of the problem (in this miscommunication). Could you format your statement that went along the lines of “don’t mirror transphobic language if you don’t want to appear transphobic” in a way that uses the words “should” and “if” in the same sentence? I find often that such a structure can address matters of internal perspective without presenting an imposing presence to the conversation or dialogue.