I get it but you’re gonna turn people away because it isn’t literally true.
For example: I support trans people, but would oppose them forming an army and going on a murder spree.
Don’t put limits on your allyship, “Trans Army going on a murder spree” is justified and also an awesome band name.
Fair fair, but I kinda made a promise two months ago so personally…
What unit type are you?
Obviously the attack helicopter, duh.
Or what if ginger people called Clive formed a motorcycle gang with arseless chaps and terrorised the M21 - should I allow them to renew their Bridge Club membership?
I used to think that. These days I’m over people being pedantic.
I feel like pedantry these days serves corporations over workers, zionists over U.S. citizens and pedophile presidents.
Exactly
Well just know its turning people away and with a little bit more effort into precision in rhetoric you could have allies in those people
We’d have enemies calling themselves allies under the guise of things like “just being pedantic” or “just asking questions” or “just trying to help you with optics.”
If they are enemies they find any way to undermine they possibly can
I rolled my eyes when I saw this comic because I thought we were past something so basic. Then I saw the comments here.
Removed by mod
I get what you’re saying, totally. And it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with aspects of a “cause” while still supporting the people involved.
But (hah) that’s not really the point of the comic.
It’s when you feel the need to throw in your “but” after a statement of support that is at issue. It’s not the fact of being free to have objections to the pharmaceutical industry using animals that’s the problem in your example. It would be, in the context of this post, that you felt that your objection was tied to the right of trans people to exist with equal rights.
See, objection is to a completely separate issue. You can focus on reducing or eliminating the use of animals in medicine without tying it to the right of trans people to have access to gender affirming care. If your objection is to the animal issue, great, wonderful. That’s a separate conversation.
And I’m only using that example because it’s the one you used. It could be anything, any “but”.
Like, my little issue that intersects enough that it could be a but is allowing dedicated spaces. There are times and places where a branch of cis gendered experience is being shared, and someone that isn’t part of that group is going to be extraneous or possibly disruptive. Like, you don’t have a support group for men that survive testicular cancer and think it’s okay for a cis woman to show up. It’s okay to exclude women from that. It’s also okay to exclude anyone that hasn’t had testicular cancer, even if they have testicles. It’s also okay to exclude people that never had testicles at all, even if they’re men, regardless of being cis or trans.
That, however, is absolutely unnecessary to bring up when I say “I support trans people”. There’s no but there. The support is full stop. No buts. There’s zero need to drag that separate issue that just happens to intersect in a peripheral way with some segment of the trans population.
That’s what the comic is about, not blindly accepting things. What it comes down to is that if you think your “buts” are more important than supporting the rights of trans people, you aren’t really supporting them. And that’s what adding that “but” means. It’s saying that whatever your issue is is more important, that it overrides that struggle.
That’s it. The presence of the but in that statement indicates it isn’t true. And that would be the case for any “I support” statement.
I understand what you are saying. The issue is if someone were to say, using the example, “I don’t think we should use animal based hormones” without a qualifier they run the risk of having to fight off allegations of not supporting or discriminating against trans people when that clearly isn’t what they belive.
So they start with the qualifier. However now people claim that is disingenuous.
Honestly it’s something I’ve seen develop more and more over the years. People like to ignore all of the context of any given conversation.
Obviously if the qualifier is followed with something actually unsupportive you’re right, but based on the comic we’ll never get to know what that but was.
I tend to be the sort that if I voice something akin to this subject and it gets twisted into an allegation, I’m going to explain what I mean more fully, or determine if the person just has an axe to grind, or at least take the time to examine their take and see if I should change my thinking on a subject. If they just have an axe to grind, I’m out because I don’t have patience for zealots. If it was a misunderstanding, then it’s easy to fix. It is also entirely possible that someone could come up with something I hadn’t considered.
I’m old as fuck though. It makes me a bit more willing to listen than when I was younger and might have gotten het up over someone bringing up a tangent to a big issue. And, I’m also less willing to tolerate when someone is just looking for an argument by throwing an allegation and assuming the worst rather than just talking like a decent human being. I’m too old to argue with a zealot, so I just walk away. Even online, I have to be in a foul mood before I’ll give energy to someone that’s not acting in good faith with me as a fellow human being. In meat space, I have body language, tone and such to help make that determination, so I tend to walk away quicker (though often with an eye roll and some muttering about wasted time.)
Legit though, in the comic’s scenario, there would be nothing that could come after the “but” that would be germaine. Hypothetically, yeah, a person could be coming up with something that wasn’t going to negate the original statement. It just doesn’t work out that way when it comes to discussion of marginalized peoples. Like, since I first became aware of humans being shitty to groups of humans they don’t like, it’s a thing. Nobody ever throws out “I support gays, but…”, or “black people deserve civil rights, but…” without following up with something that works against their previous statement.
Folks bringing up stuff like your example? They’re not going to say it the same way. “But” is used in a way that negates more often than not, and when it’s about supporting a marginalized group, I have never seen anyone throw a but without negating their supposed support. Worse, it’s fairly common in my experience that the “but” ends up being a dog whistle or outright bigoted.
Going back to the vegan example (and let me interject that this conversation has been really awesome, I love it when people engage the way you are), if someone says “but animal hormones”, they’re effectively saying that their belief in appropriate manufacture of medical products is more important than the rights of trans people to access gender affirming care.
If they didn’t think that, they’d most likely, go with “and it sucks that trans people have reduced access to ethically sourced hormones”. It’s a different way of thinking about a given issue. There’s ways to expand a conversation to include one’s related thoughts without using a negating conjunction. You know in role play and improv, there’s a guiding principle of “yes, and” instead of “yes, but”? It applies in this kind of situation, with the choice of but rather than and pointing to a less humorous situation.
Like, in running over this example, if I had an objection to the source of the hormones, my way of expressing it would come out “I support trans people. I really wish the pharmaceutical industry would support them in a way that reduces harm to animals as well. We can have both.” That’s the phrasing that came into my head when I put myself in that hypothetical vegan’s place.
It’s a different way of communication, it’s a different way of thinking.
Excellent response
The presence of the but in that statement indicates it isn’t true. And that would be the case for any “I support” statement.
To me it seems like the obvious point of prepending a support statement to a separate objection would be to clarify that what you mean by that objection is not broad hostility, if it seems people might confuse it for that otherwise. There’s better ways to word it (maybe split into multiple sentences), but I don’t think someone saying “but” necessarily is trying to convey that the thing they are objecting to competes with or outweighs their support.
With most things, I would tend to agree. It’s just that with marginalized groups, that “but” is only rarely going to be something that’s not just a dismissal of some part of the fundamental issues that make the group marginalized in the first place.
Not sure who has experienced what, but here in the south I have lost track of how many times I’ve heard things like “black people are great, but…” or “I don’t have anything against gays, but…”
There’s a way of thinking behind buts when applied to this kind of matter that’s different from “I like shrimp, but…”
People making that kind of statement disingenuously is definitely a negative trope for a reason, and because people are likely to interpret it in light of that trope it is bad etiquette. The reason it’s misused that way though is because it is one of the simplest ways to frame a statement of polite disagreement. If people not wanting to attack marginalized groups avoid saying it, that’s probably more because most of them have picked up on the etiquette rule rather than because the inherent meaning of such a statement is an attack.
Very well put.
I felt it in my gut that “but” was wrong but I hadn’t sorted out exactly why yet, and you reasoned it out perfectly.
Absolutism is dangerous regardless of how “right” the argument is.
I think this was actually what I was aiming to say, I think I used the wrong example, well kind of knew which is why I tried saying it was a shitty argument. But thank you for better articulating the core
That’s because IRL the context of “but” s doesn’t usually go like this when there’s a legitimate argument. The point of the comic is not blindly following trans people.
“I support trans people, but X” tends to have transphobic sentiment, even if X could be valid. In your example, many medicines are animal-derived or tested on animals. Focusing on addressing trans prople on this topic is usually a choice.
If you have these views, the context you would usually express them is not addressing trans people, but your message would probably be “I oppose people taking animal-derived medicines even if it improves their health”.
Another simplified example. Let’s say there’s a grifter, scammer, scummy trans person, Alice. If you want to denounce Alice, you’d say “Alice is a scammer, xyz, don’t use her as positive trans representation” in a forum, discussion, post, etc. You’d probably not start with “I support trans people, but some of them are scammers like Alice”. Imagine how weird that would sound with other minority or opressed groups (women, black, gay, etc).
By the way: I don’t know if you’re vegan, but most vegans don’t share your views on animal-derived or tested medicine (even the Vegan Society definition accepts these medicines). I’d suggest you find another term so you don’t misrepresent veganism, like “ethical” or “[strict] animal rights” beliefs. I don’t want to invalidate or debate your beliefs but calling it veganism is just not accurate.
Exactly, this is in the manipulators playbook:
“I have nothing against X, but have you seen Y?!”,
Y is very tangentially related to X, and should be addressed on its own, but is used to intentionally “smear” the bad reputation onto X.
These “buts” do not come from allies.
Sorry did not want to make animals/vegans an issue, I was a vegan for a while but not anymore, not really my issue, I just wanted to make a shitty argument, not to try and denounce the logic of the comic but more to say there should not be bans on all viewpoints.
Honestly I agree with your point fully, I get what the comic was saying, there should not be conditions on support, but I do believe like stopping a conversation may not open the opportunity to help correct or inform someone (ok you won’t reach everyone and some are way too invested to learn and grow unfortunately).
And thank you for calling me out, my argument was wrong trying to assert one viewpoint into another, I promise I am not trying to be malicious or anything, also wasn’t trying to represent any vegans, sorry to all vegans that took offence, also did not try and force a misrepresentation onto them(I know some vegans that do have the viewpoint that animal-derived medicines are an issue but that is their own individual beliefs but that ). But it is as others said not my core of my idea, I think people should be open to having conversations to identify a possible shortcoming in beliefs and then be open to have that explained and hopefully grow.
Continue defending what is right and thank you for the long message to explain my argument’s shortcoming (sorry again for the shitty example) and thank you for engaging me.
Would I be wrong to say (this is a damn shitty example so clearly wrong to make a point): I support trans rights, but I do not support their preference to use of animal-derived hormone replacement therapy instead of synthetic-derived, as it conflicts with my Vegan beliefs.
Yes, because you’ve moved the conversation away from one of support to a tangentially related topic that you wish to engage on. While occasionally, this can be a teachable moment or an honest discussion, more often than not, it is used to derail or poison the topic.
Agree that it can be used to poison the topic, and I feel that is great because like how you showed that I injected tangential belief and we can have a conversation. FYI I am not a vegan anymore, and I did not want to inject animal derived medication, I just quickly thought of an example. Sorry if I inserted this weird tangential issue, it was more about the absurdity of having absolutes in any statement. Thanks for showing up and correcting me, love it.
Honestly I support the trans movement, be as free to be who you are, and fuck anyone to say you have to be how they think you should be. And keep on defending others rights, I did not mean to attack anyone or try to poison the conversation, sorry if I actually did unintentionally, but I am glad I was called out and you gave me something to think about
I think the key thing is to have the conversations at the right time, in the right context. Like, the best way to avoid saying “I support trans rights but [valid tangential belief]” is to separate out those two clauses so that the valid tangential belief isn’t appearing to undermine one’s support for trans rights in general. Like, even rewriting the sentence so that it is two separate sentiments without the “but” can make a big difference.
A tangential analogy that comes to mind (and I want to emphasise that I don’t think your example comes anywhere close to this kind of behaviour) is when assholeish “Men’s Rights Activists” (MRA) will complain about feminists not caring about men’s suffering, but then be suspiciously quiet whenever feminists try to involve them in the conversation (I say this as a feminist who is passionate about understanding the ways that men also suffer under the patriarchy, and who has become a much more effective feminist through solidarity with men).
But then when a feminist (or any woman, really) starts to talk about things that has affected them as a woman (or someone perceived as a woman), then suddenly the MRAs will jump in to shout over whoever is speaking. It makes it blatantly obvious that they don’t actually give a fuck about men’s struggles, but just want to derail the conversation and suppress women’s voices.
Like I said above, this is a completely different scenario than the hypothetical you described, but they’re similar in that the more appropriate response in both cases is to show some grace and make sure we discuss our issues in the space and context that’s most appropriate. Like, if the phrase “I support trans rights” is being said, then the conversation is probably about broader issues, and is likely to involve some people who don’t support trans rights. Discussing issues like animal derived medication is probably more suited to an environment where everyone there is either trans, or a trans ally — and not just because of the harmful effects of the “I support trans rights but…” framing, but because if someone cares about whether people use animal derived medications, then the last thing one would want is for that point to be hijacked by anti-trans activists who don’t give a fuck about animal derived medications
Disliking one particular medicine used to treat gender dysphoria doesn’t mean you don’t support trans persons, and also isn’t something you’re likely to ever bring up except in nuanced and detailed discussions with people who also support them.
Its referring to a real-world phenomenon where the large majority of cis people who claim they support trans people actively support policies intended to directly hurt trans people. Of course there’s nuances that can be had, but comics generally oversimplify and/or exaggerate for comedic effect and the intended message is still able to be conveyed to most people (probably you included; you probably are just being intentionally pedantic because you find it amusing to do so).
Also, I’d guess trans people are much much more likely to be vegan or veg*-spec than cis people, but I don’t have any data on that. If anything, “I support cis people, but why are so many of them carnists?” would make more sense. I know you say you aren’t vegan any more, so perhaps its not something you care about.
Equal human rights is unconditional. There is no wiggle room. You either believe we should all have human rights or you don’t. No qualifiers. There is a line in the Sand. Good guys on one side and bad on the other.
The problem with this line of thinking is that if anything but total purity is rejected, then your side of the line in the sand is quite small in comparison to the other side.
I agree in theory that human rights are non-negotiable. But in practice, movements need popular support, and that support relies on compromises.
In my view, fascism is the unionization of all groups and individuals that a democratic society considers to be immoral. The harsher a society is in its moral judgements, the larger the “out group” becomes and thus fascism grows stronger. This is not a moral question, btw. It is a simple question of cause and effect. In a perfect world there would be no fence-sitters or bigots. But we don’t live in a perfect world.
If the line in the sand is peoples right to live and express themselves freely then I am fine being a purist.
But that’s not the line in the sand in the comic. In the comic, the line in the sand is people being uncertain about trans issues. This can just as easily stem from a lack of information or inherited values as it might stem from genuine bigotry.
I don’t support ignorance. My own included.
If you(the plural you, not you the person who’s comment I’m replying to) check out just because you hear the word but and presume to know what’s going to be said next or that you can judge that person without them saying another word then you could be a better person.
In this specific example, one could have said I support trans people but I don’t have to like every one of them. Some of us do shitty things. That’s a percentage of every group and we have to be able to speak out against actual shit humans of every single type that exists.
I don’t people that need to leave a conversation but I do expect responses to actual things said not what is predicted to say.
I don’t say this just for the way I speak and communicate. There are many people who struggle to communicate well the thoughts and feelings they feel. Perhaps they don’t know your language very well. I’m very given to find some way a phrase or word can be used differently than I’ve ever heard it used before. I’ve also seen immigrants with poor language skills get hated on for using expressions they hear without fully understanding them. It’s taught me to try to see the literal meaning of words spoken to me. And it’s also made me extremely pedantic when I’m simply trying to be cautious and specific with my words.
I may have many ignorant ideas left to discover and examine. It’s almost certain that I do.
I believe in giving people the chance to express or explain themselves. I also believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves.
If you are not harming yourself and other people it’s none of my business. If you are only harming yourself and no one else, I’m less decided.
Situations matter. Context matters. Intent matters, Consequences matter
Let people be who they are, if you find the aren’t your people then you at least learned something you probably needed to know.
I think it’s because it typically falls into the pattern of “This is something I feel I have to say, but here’s three paragraphs of what I actually believe.”
I support trans people, but I still feel a little bit uncomfortable around them because of my conservative upbringing and how hard “trans = bad” was driven into my head. I’m working on improving that and every time I interact with someone who is trans I become a little bit more comfortable with it.
If I ever felt the need to tell someone this feeling, I think I would completely rephrase it to avoid this situation anyway.
Im the trans girl your parents warned you about >:3
I get it. I had to do a lot of unlearning just to be comfortable with myself. I can hardly blame folks who are trying for slipping up as long as they do what the can to make it right.
Some of us grew up with that same belief set about ourselves.
I think theres a lot of opportunity to say that kind of thing kindly to a friend or person. As someone who’s working on not seeing herslef as bad just because I exist, the fact that you’re working towards fixing that internal bias helps on that journey for anyone traveling it
That’s fair, I had sorts of folks I had to spend time around to get comfortable with too. I think a lot of people think that it’s necessary or easy to suddenly become comfortable with sorts of people who are marginalized. But what we should be doing is demanding people be moving towards a more equal and free society and not making their discomfort those people’s problem.
ETA: building comfort with those groups is also important, but it’s slow and it’s something we shouldn’t beat people up for not being quite at yet.
You’re doing infinitely more work than the majority of the US right now; it’s much appreciated that yoy’re confronting your own discomfort with kindness and compassion rather than the usual anger and vitriol that leads to violence against trans people
Fits well with the Not Racist Butt
A friend of mine and I once thought it would be funny to try to say “I’m not racist but…” and then follow it up with the most innocuous nonsense possible that had nothing to do with race, but it turns out, just by prefacing “I’m not racist but…” it kind of makes EVERYTHING racist.
Oh man I need to save that for a new avatar.
But it’s not Simpsons based.
I am so torn.
But it’s a butt
edit: i did it
I support trans people, but if one of them cut my legs off with an axe, I’d probably be a little bit upset.
I support trans people, but half of you have the naming convention of a 19th century boarding school novel or a Star Wars EU background charact who inexplicably has a book series that would fit surprisingly well a Warhammer 40k chaos novel.
I’ve removed a bunch of comments from this thread.
The “but” in this meme means “But there are instances where I don’t support a trans person’s identity/equal rights”. It means that there is never a scenario where you think it’s ok to suggest that trans people should have less rights than cis people, and that there is never a scenario where you think it’s ok to invalidate a trans persons identity.
If your reply is something along the signs of supporting the “but…” because you think “actually, there are some shitty trans people”, then cool, we know, but this isn’t the thread for it, and you’re pulling trans people down in a trans space, to defend a position no one was making. This isn’t that thread. This is a thread for support. So I’ve removed those “gotcha” replies.
If your reply is “actually, there are times when trans people don’t deserve equal rights or to have their identity respected”, then your comment has been removed, and you’ve been permanently banned from all blahaj spaces.
I support trans people but who gave them the right to be so cool?
I also support trans people’s butts.
Are you, like, a chair or something?
From time to time!
I volunteer my lap - in a cozy, harmless grandfatherly way - or shoulder gladly if it helps.
Have a great day!
Hopefully with consent ;)
I really wish this was just a given. Consent is a human right, and trans rights are human rights. These things should be obvious to everyone, so it’s sad that we have to spell it out. :(
I support trans people, butt
Trans people know breast.
@Quokka @transmemes Breasting boobily
“I support trans people butt.”
If that is the whole sentence, we’re fine.
Ooo I wanna try
I support Trans people but this coffee shop this Trans lady in town opened, her coffee is sour. Will someone please teach her to make coffee so supporting her doesn’t taste bad?
How was that? Also why does my autocarrot capitalize Trans? Is it like Black when referring to identifiers? The Chicago manual of style didn’t prepare me for this
Sure, but you’ve also unveiled an implicit bias there.
It’s like saying the person was black. You didn’t need to, it has no bearing on the story. It shows that something about that particular characteristic had an effect on the situation for you, even subconsciously.
It’s not the hugest deal, it might not even be negative. I catch myself doing it sometimes, we all have stuff that was built into us that we don’t know is there.
Fresh light roast coffee is sour and it’s supposed to be and I love it. If you don’t like sour coffee get darker roasts or shittier coffee. Just saying. Get a great blonde roast shot of espresso pulled for yourseld sometime, life changing.
…but I can’t see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
