WARNING: i tripped halfway through the writing and revision of this post so the grammar and stuff will be spotty
...wut. This turnaround is (1) exceptionally recent and (2) the result of significant concentrated activism and reporting. This turnaround largely takes the form of anti-discrimination laws and policies. I don't think successfully making the case for not being discriminated against in housing, work, and law is a particularly high bar for "influence." Other forms of influence include leadership positions economic (ex. CEO), scientific, and political (ex. mayor -- direct representation) stations. These stations are largely not possessed by trans people in general, including trans women. Also, why are you putting "trans women" in quotation marks? Major global corporations and governments aren't exclusively listening to trans women on these matters. Other trans people and cis people also support these efforts for non-discrimination.
Do you think asking governments and global corporations to fairly treat people counts as influence? When compared to "influence" including aspects like being in positions of leadership not involved specifically in anti-discrimination, as point of reference?
Yes, if you look specifically at ant-discrimination policy and law, trans women have some degree of influence. If you include positions of leadership and authority, then no, the answer is easily that mostly cis people occupy such positions (which is fine except when there is very sparse record of trans people in general in positions of leadership and authority).
In short, no. Trans women do have little influence in society (more than 10 years ago, and virtually none at all 30+ yrs ago (not counting historical societies)).
She doesn't make that assumption.
03:20 -- "the word trap refers to either a male crossdresser or a trans woman, especially in the context of [anime]"
07:08 -- "trans women, in my country almost entirely trans women of colour, are murdered at a disgracefully high rate, reaching a record of 29 deaths in 2017."
Contra's Youtube channel lists her location as "United States." So she names her country.
Why do you keep putting "trans women" in quotation marks?
Contra doesn't make any other claim than "disgracefully high rate." She makes no mention of "wildly disproportionate rate of violence." In other words, there is no statistics being used whatsoever.
here you go:
16.9 assaults per 1000 (~1.69% of the US's general population) in 2017 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv17.pdf
13% of trans people (respondents) have experienced physical assault in 2017 https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS Full Report - FINAL 1.6.17.pdf
33% of those trans people are trans women.
So ~4.29% of trans women have experienced physical assault assuming consistent proportionality between violence experienced by trans people and trans women specifically.
~0.6% of US's population is transgender.
So from the proportion of US's population being transgender and the rate of assault for the population of US in general, we'd expect that ~0.6% of cases of assault to involve trans people. Except, when we look consider the napkin math we just did, we can see that ~13% of trans people have experienced physical violence and that ~4.29% of trans women have experienced physical assault. The numbers 13% and 4.29% are higher than 0.6% of cases of assault and can be explained in part by the USTS's nature as a volunteer survey vs. the NCVS which is randomized.
However, the World Health Organization (WHO) quite plainly recognizes that transgender people (and gender and sexual minorities in general) experience violence at a higher rate than the general population and across the material they look at, they find a range between 11% and 69% having experienced violence at some point in their lifetime, making the yearly numbers of 13% and 4.29% look fairly tame.
That said, it's an incredibly unsurprising conclusion to draw (that trans people and trans women especially) experience violence at an increased rate and isn't really a wild leap of any sort.
If no amount of murder acceptable, then why even bring up "using statistics more responsibly?" If no amount of murder is acceptable, then what sets the standard for doing the topic "justice" as you say?
There you go. Pretty simple. 10 seconds googling for "trans panic defense". Further reading: https://lgbtbar.org/programs/advocacy/gay-trans-panic-defense/
The reason why she brings this up is to help illustrate why a trans woman might be upset by being called a trap and how the word "trap" might be perceived by someone who doesn't live off of anime memes and how that perception is the same sort of perception that is sometimes used in trials.
"doesn't set it up or follow it through properly"? What do you call 07:25 up to 08:15?
She literally did anonymize it as much as possible and show it to us!
why is it a big deal for it to be a purely emotional appeal when the whole idea of whether you should or should not be allowed to use certain words and language is based ENTIRELY off of emotional appeal? If someone asked you not to swear in front of their children then you should respect that. Unless you don't believe in doing that I guess. I don't know what's left to be said or argued after that.
Contra is attempting, in good faith, to explain something complex and personal in an entertaining way. I need you to timestamp your claim. 10:40? Is it when it goes into a black and white filter? That scene was sarcasm. I believe it's meant to communicate that being called a "trap" feels like being given an insulting compliment like "WOW, you're really this for a [your type of person] huh??" There's a term for that but I can't remember.
As for the North Carolina bathroom law: whoah... no. That bill was transphobic and really bad.
You've completely ignored all of what I said immediately following the quotation you took out of context. Important bit: REGION CHAT.
Neither of your points are true.
(1) it is 100% true that one is ALWAYS allowed to use ANY language that they wish at ANY time at ANY place.
(2) It is NOT 100% true that one is ALWAYS allowed to use ANY language that they wish at ANY time at ANY place without repercussion.
(3) Neither of the above two points are contradictory.
(4) None of the above three points necessarily factor into the decision-making regarding what language is considered a part of acceptable discourse and what language is not.
(5) The only thing that factors into the decision-making regarding what language is allowed and what isn't in a single instance of discourse is mutual agreement between parties on what is agreeable and what is not.
(6) The mutual agreement that all Warframe players who post on the Warframe forums adhere to is the terms of service and code of conduct as written and interpreted by DE.
(7) DE is under no obligation to even consider any of our inputs regarding the mutual agreement.
(8) In drafting and implementing such an agreement or policy, the only thing that matters is how each contributor feels about each atomic element of language (each word, in this case).
(9) Each social circle and universe of discourse agrees on policy based purely on utterly arbitrary rules and feelings.
(10) The trappings of "logical reasoning" and "freedom of speech" and "decency" or "to prevent bigotry" are similarly utterly arbitrary appeals to emotional response (perhaps this is unintuitive to understand -- that is understandable).
(11) Hence why no amount of superficially "logical" reasoning can conclude whether this or that element of language is acceptable.
(12) Hence why no amount of populist support for this or that filter to be removed or employed is in itself reason for DE to do anything.
(13) (Because DE can decide to do anything they want as they are the sole contributor and enforcer of any code of conduct and the sole party holding any final influence whatsoever)
(14) So when I say that "You are of course allowed to use whatever language you want in a different social setting and you are perfectly correct in that different places have different sentiments about the same words. None of this logically leads to the conclusion that DE should or shouldn't permit certain language in Region chat" in response to "It will vary one what area on the internet you are looking at as there will be those that "echo" the same sentiment, there are also those where the reverse is true", what I am saying is that what is acceptable and unacceptable in any corner of the internet other than this corner of the Internet called the Warframe official forums has nothing to do with whether or not any one particular word or phrase should be acceptable or unacceptable right here in this corner of the Internet called the Warframe official forums.
(15) In other words, "it will vary depending on what area of the internet you are in" as an argument amounts to using "well they can do [xyz] so why can't we do [xyz]?" as an argument.
(16) In other words, if DE internally decides that "No, we ARE (NOT) going to allow [word]," no amount of protest is going to change that unless their reason for allowing or forbidding any one word or phrase actually takes into account populist opinion
(17) i.e. I'm pretty confident that the most effective way to get DE to allow or block a word or phrase with a filter is simply to show that most players want to use that word or phrase in DE's channels of discourse except that a lot of the demand for "trap" being totally removed from the filter boils down to "you're not letting me and muh politics" and personally, that's not a reason I would accept and all the other publicised cases of "moderation overreach" has in the large majority of cases been literally just "why can't I bash DE" and/or "why can't I use this one specific meme to bash trans people".
(18) I don't care about the word "trap" for the most part except that when it comes specifically to Region chat because it's pretty obvious that the intent is not a cursory and harmless "I wanna meme" or "I wanna discuss androgynous bodies with penises in a light-hearted manner" and instead mostly just a lot of trolls crowding around responding to each others' "dogwhistling"/"virtue signalling" (these two words/phrases mean the same thing -- the vernacular you choose to use largely depends on if your beliefs are more consistent with one group's than another's).
Look. I've read through a lot of these sorts of threads ("but muh filter, modz r bad, DE evil") here on this forum and on Reddit. The number of outright, blatantly obvious transphobic posts is pretty big and it's even more disheartening to see that a lot of those extremely disparaging and hateful (either overtly or subtly) posts get a lot of upvotes. The mods have done a lot of work removing a lot of the worst offenders. I literally saw one of these such posts get removed from this very thread yesterday. And for me, that's what it comes down to: a LOT of people railing about "filter this" and "filter that" have ulterior motives. The fact that so few of you arguing against the filter recognize this prevalence of transphobia and/or actively dismiss it is telling to me then that a lot of people are going to abuse it (specifically "abuse," and not just "legitimately innocently meme") the moment DE decides to stop filtering it.
In other words: I'm not buying it cuz I ain't stupid and I hope that DE doesn't buy it either OR that they have enough perspective to see that my perception is in error and that it's fine to go through with it.
There are good reasons for why certain filters and practices should stop being exmployed. I just think there is a better reason not to.
And for the record: I am glad DE hasn't already gone through with stopping their automodding. That said, I'd be very happy to satisfy my curiosity as to what sort of stuff is getting modded and their contexts, since I think that would be very revealing and I'm happy with transparency and data collection.
I've addressed this. I do believe there are people who aren't going to be jerks about it. But there are definitely jerks who would be and are barely held in check anyway (see OP).
The fact that cisgender heterosexual people constitute the majority does not alone make such a term as "trap" a result of coincidence. (Although I understand why in our world that would be a common belief.)
That fact also requires a cultural myth that all the people one would come across are going to also be cisgender heterosexual people and that it's always going to be obvious. In our instance of possible universes, this cultural myth is called "cisgender heterosexual normativity."
The simple counterproof is that if every single person in the world knew that any person they meet may not be cisgender and heterosexual, then it would never be a "safe" bet to assume as much and it would always be wise to be forward, honest, and direct by just asking. As a result, people who are androgynous and without any obvious performances of sexuality would more than likely go under a different term with different connotations other than "trap."
uhhhh no. You misunderstand me or I'm not explaining myself correctly.
People have a phobia about calling things x-phobic and being called x-phobic because most people perceive "x-phobic" as to mean THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD OMG IM GONNA GO TO HELL.
Calling something x-phobic can have a range of severity. From not at all x-phobic, to "wow what in the world is wrong with you" and then you get ostracised x-phobic, to what I call "background radiation x-phobic" that is an unfortunate consequence but our world's history but nothing to lose sleep over.
In this case, I mean to say that society today is mostly "background radiation x-phobic" that is an unfortunate consequence of our world's history and nothing really to lose sleep over (unless you're the one affected, in which case, that's understandable) except with plenty of pockets of atrocious examples of x-phobia.
North Carolina's bathroom bill and the moral panic that has seized the USA regarding trans people land at the "pretty bad" transphobia level.
Most of us in Canada don't give a Kubrow's poop about it, so what results is mostly "background radiation, unfortunate consequence" transphobia.
tl;dr people have fears. You don't need to assume anything about me.
Okay but this isn't mathematics. This is thread in a forum for a video game about a chat channel in that video game. It doesn't require anywhere near the same amount of rigour, accuracy, or precision. I'm sad I even have to go to this whole extent, though I have no one but me to blame for wasting my own time.
3d chess. i have a vocabulary and im gonna use it to maximum effect. tl;dr google "define symptomatic". It has more than one meaning than as it applies to medicine. Except that that's pointless: would you have been happier if I had chosen "indicative"? Is that less "metaphorical?" Or does that not simply apply a facade of logic and rationality?
^ because this right here? This idea of lingual choice and use of metaphor to create misleading or deceptive language? is exactly the same "manipulation" as you call it, that's going on with the word "trap" and why... y'know...... generally/usually it's polite not to call trans women that.
And I wouldn't want people who don't know better to associate "trap" with trans women. And I think it's pretty fair to say that that possibility to associate traps with trans women to be fairly realistic. It's happening -- otherwise, why are we even discussing this?
No, he's kind of an ass and completely missed the point. "I don't wanna be that guy" -> *proceeds to trainwreck* He gets very narrowly focused very quickly because there's only two possible groups to name.
A human need that I could fulfill is to play Warframe instead of spending my time here but instead, here i am!
Also: we are in conflict, you and I. I very much dislike having to demonstrate why something can have different meanings but still also exist simultaneously as a slur, much less contest my right to use a bathroom or whether benefiting from basic rights is a good and reasonable example of having influence in a society.
I did. Here it is again:
Oh, to add to the above: part of the reason why lots of trans people identify with supposedly trap characters is because they often are the closest characters to a relatively positively presented and written character who is in some way shape or form gender nonconforming. Right? So it's largely an argument between lots of youth and young adult weebs. Like, I don't think anyone over the age of like... 30-35 even knows what a trap is or how it's contextualized by frickin ANIME.
As far as I'm concerned, to start with, anyone who knows this much about traps as a concept basically doesn't t have a say in whether trap is a slur or not to the eyes of the general public because there's no way to know for sure how the general public will react and interpret some new (irrelevant) piece of vernacular.
hot damn this stuff's makin me thirsty
this sure is hard work, posting high
so maybe i might stop early.
and so basically, to start with, this is a stupid conversation no one cares about. talk about it with your weeb friends in your d1sc0rd servers, n00b.
i don't know what you're talking about relevance actually i think i might have to stop lul hooooo boy it kickin in
what i am saying is:
(1) just because other people say that in other circles doesn't mean we also have to say that in our circle
(2) ok now im really OTHER thirsty
(3) and basically like. so that's not a good reason for why we should or shouldn't say trap in our warframe circle
they're just cuties... leave them alone
well i don't want to come across as being governed by a different rule set. that said, i probably am because my context of learned ideas, social interactions, and overall human experience informs my ideas so like... of course I'm going to have an idea of what sort of ruleset i and others follow, if we follow the same ruleset at all, or if my ruleset only comes across as being different cuz my ruleset features others' i disagreee with rulesets as subsets of a flowchart of my ruleset
like being a fascist or communist or anarchist or democrat or monarchist, like, the belief of how power should flow is the domain of each of these rulesets and belief systems.
So, if my ruleset happened to contain as a subset someone else's ruleset, then I'm sure that would certainly make it seem like I operate under a completely different ruleset.
--what i am saying is
please explain what you mean by "governing myself vs other people" with different rulesets
cuz i think like, if someone believes in a terrible awful ruleset
and part of my experience is that that ruleset is awful
(like if you think we live in a geocentric orbital system, and i think we live in a heliocentric orbital system, then we clearly interpreted data differently.)
dude.l,,,,,,,,,, no...... i can't do this....
i believe that people's feelings inform all of their reality, purer than mathematical logic
so what it comes down to is.......
if a lot of people would feel bad, hurt, upset, angered, saddened, or other negative emotion if people actually casually used "trap" (or any other word) as part of the common Region chat vernacular, then we should ban the use of that word (and like, a chat ban for only that is too much but also that doesn't happen, probably deleting and adding a warning point is sufficient to curb behaviour)
and I think there are a lot of people in Region chat who would be hurt because not all the people there will be familiar with anime trap subculture and that word's exact origins
and I think this is the crux of the problem:
(1) people who don't know the slur's exact origin and context wouldn't understand that it might not be meant as a slur so they only can infer its meaning through context and lingual metaphors
(2) the word "trap" does invoke deception
(3) so people who don't already know the slur's exact origin and context would interpret the metaphorical element and connotation of "trap", which is deception per (2).
(4) and since people who aren't in the know are going to inevitably interact with people who are in the know and use that "in the know" language,
(5) that's rather inevitably going to involve into a situation where there are multiple meanings for that word practised by different people
(6) and due to the nature of the different meanings... they cause friction
We're already at the friction step!!! The two worlds have collided!
(7) and either all people gotta be in the know or not all people gotta be in the know, and it's a race to see which group consumes 100% of the Region chat population
that means we gotta COMPETE!!! grrrrrrrrRRRRRRAAAAAAA
(8) meanwhile, DE watches us fight and die like animals over our idols cackling as their capitalist death machines murder swathes of corpus and grineer alike
(9) it doesn't matter to them, our wallets are all gonna die
so that's it then. You and I must duel to the death, unless in the midst of tragic violence we brush up sensually against each other, cupids trading arrows, it's 20 years later "hi honey"
IS THIS MANIPULATION? IS THIS QWHAT YOU WANAAANNTTTTTTTT BABBYYYYYYYYYYYYY O MOMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OOOOOOOoooooooouuuwuUUUUUUOOOOOOO
.... dude, no
Canadian and American corporate culture really does not allow use of the N word. DE's a Canadian company and there are a lot of US and Canadian customers/players.
"sanitzed and controlled spaces" -> yes, dude, that's exactly the point. Region chat is that sanitized and controlled space to DE. That's exactly why DE does this! Region chat is one of the first player-to-player interactions in Warframe, a game that will be rife with player interaction. Of course they want it to be sanitized and controlled! The forums are too! (even stricter, I might add)! Letting players say the N word would be a DISASTER for DE!!
Likewise for "trap" specifically because of the in-know-out-know group dynamic!!
like, people still get shot over the N word, it's seriously not safe to just blurt out the N word depending on where you are. people carry their grudges and prejudices into cyberspace and it feels as though you interpret this in a vacuum. it's not safe
anyway I see this as a case of harm reduction being the method.
okay well what are our initial places of agreement?
and like, in the process of moving beyond the initial places of agreement,
you just get looped back into tribalism.
it just happens, like a helix. drill.
People are in a constant loop of shared agreement achieved, people begin to stray because of natural mutations and natural selection of ideas, people stray too far and start disagreeing, then you do have to just bring it back but you can't ever stop it. You need to just flow and march onwards. time can't be reverrsed.... probably.
Like, we already are tribal. we're right now CALCULATING the shared agreement by posting back and forth together! wow, isnt that fun? seems fun to me. aahhhhhhhh
yes... i am... very nefarious......... muhahahahahaha UHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OOHOHOHOHOOO OOOOWWOWOWOOOOWOOOOO
"That's surely not the case here" SUUUUURE. /s why even ask this if you're so sure?
If you honestly think I am being nefarious or destructive, just so say. You sound coy to me