I've found that a lot of people benefit from a phased approach, and in general saying "I'm trans and these are my name and pronouns" is a good beginning.
Some people are curious and will ask questions. I always take a second to think about the question: is it being asked in good faith and do I feel like answering it? I especially took that approach with my parents, who are not accepting.
Some people are curious but won't ask questions for fear of prying. I've tried to be more forthcoming with friends like that so they don't have to ask, but it also sometimes feels like I'm over-sharing.
Some people are not curious for whatever reason. I came out to those people simply, and that was it.
In any case, how people react initially isn't a great indicator of their long-term response. My experience has been that coming out is easy initially, but staying out is sometimes hard.
Sorry if you feel like I'm arguing in bad faith, and of course you don't need to talk to me.
My point is that being trans is inherently GNC, and excluding nonbinary people as statistically insignificant is really an argument against all trans people, whether they pass or not. I know you're talking about what cis people think and not what YOU think, but my hope is that cis-passing trans folks that are accepted by "society" on condition of their passing will reject such conditional acceptance. In other words, non-passing GNC folks, such as enbies, need the support of passing trans allies against exclusionary, divisive gender-conforming norms.
I'd like to pass, and maybe one day I will, and I hope I can continue to support less "acceptable" identities.
Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that cishets trying to preserve the gender binary are valid. I understand wanting to appeal to 99% of people, but binary trans people won't gain freedom to transition by throwing non-binary people under the bus.
I do agree that cis people should support trans people, but I disagree that it should be predicated on their bullshit beliefs. I don't require them to eat shit, but I will allow it as long as they support the queer community unequivocally 🙂
You misunderstood me, I think. My reply was about their phrasing. "Should've taught" makes it sound like the onus is on me to idk watch Good Burger (which I have seen, and I understand the reference, by the way) and feel some great relief.
We agree that the problem is that countries would deny asylum to those in need, but sounds like your solution that those in need should preemptively disqualify themselves based vibes or something.
I think anyone who wants to should apply for asylum. If they are rejected and choose to migrate anyway, more power to them.
I think the tone deaf thing here is you telling trans people, who are being actively targeted by an increasingly fascist goverment and conservative media, that it's not bad enough yet for them to leave.
Any person who wants to leave and has the means to leave should absolutely leave by whatever means, and your judgment of them is of no value.
If you have a problem with worldwide asylum quotas, maybe take that up with a foreign government or something. People who are just trying to survive and make the best decisions they can in an increasingly high-stakes situation should disregard everything you've said and continue doing whatever they want, and you should support their ability to do so.
It's like saying that you can't reason someone out of a belief or opinion that they didn't reason themselves into. You can't apply reason to subconscious processes and expect them to change in response. It's been a valuable lesson for me to not try and quash my emotions with logic but to give them space to exist and process.
I think a more serious plan would be to use the tranquilizer dart as a tranquilizer, so that multiple forms of GAC could be administered all at once, such as shaving and skincare.
Honestly, this is starting to sound like a service I would pay for.
Suddenly craving a Dunkin Protein Latte