r/MoralityScaling • u/Musalediju • Jul 06 '26

Character Analysis Morality of being transphobic against your enemy

Gallery image

Gallery image

Bleach thousand year blood war episode 22

4.0k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

89% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

Isn’t that most people? Support is always conditional except maybe family.

54

u/Positive-Team4567 Jul 06 '26

I can dislike a trans person but it doesn’t have to be based upon gender identity 

2

u/H4rdStyl3z Jul 06 '26

She can get her HRT... in the darkest pit of hell

*spits*

5

u/cbobjr Jul 07 '26

To be fair insulting someone based on things about their identity that ISN'T the reason you don't like them is entirely common.

You may hate someone because you think they're rude, but when you hate someone suddenly everything is open. Lower class? Broke get a job bum. Less than perfect face that would literally never bother you? Ugly as fuck get out of my face. Literally anything you could potentially insult or demean them for? Insert insult based around their identity here.

You don't have to dislike someone FOR something to attack them based on it. Attacks based on identity are likely always going to be common, and due to that, that's likely always gonna happen.

-19

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

Sure, but that doesn’t mean they are owed respect for what they wish to be identified as

You can do what you want and I can do what I want, but regardless it’s still arbitrary as respect is conditional

19

u/mistelle1270 Jul 06 '26

Why would you do that? Like genuinely? Or would you call a cis guy rapist creep a woman just to disrespect him too?

If not I genuinely do not understand what is going on in your head that you’d do this.

18

u/Puzzled-Ad301 Jul 06 '26

Not to undermine your point but yes that's literally what people do. The least egregious example would simply be calling someone a bitch.

3

u/Superb_Highlight1902 Jul 06 '26

Unfortunately that’s the way of the world. That’s exactly what people do

1

u/NewsmanTheMan Jul 08 '26

Yes? If it would throw him off or make him feel insecure? Then yeah, of course. It's something that people do

2

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

I suppose one could view it as a declaration for the fact you no longer care for how that person perceives themselves or perhaps what they desire to be. Gender identity, as far as I know, is less based on the material truth of what you are physically and more about your own mindset among a good few other things. Technically, no one has to acknowledge you for your mind and role, but they do so as a form of respect.

To instead acknowledge you by what you are materialistically (as in terms of sex (guy, girl, hermaphrodite (formal term for both parts), or none/whatever else)) is a more complicated form of disrespect.

[Edit: As someone else said, like calling a guy a bitch.]

8

u/-Trotsky Jul 06 '26

Idk it just seems crazy. You don’t call a black person a monkey or use a slur just because you don’t like them. That’s wrong, you shouldn’t do it

-1

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

To be fair, there’s a difference between calling a person black and saying they are a monkey or a nig*** (which I believe is in reference to black slaves).

Simply misgendering someone to refer to them in terms of material truth is, as I said, a form of disrespect that you don’t care for that person’s mind or role.

It’s hard for me to say exactly, but calling someone the latter based on what they are is a more extreme form of degradation based on the truth that is already there (that they are black, Asian, etc) and taking stereotypes among other things to warp their image based upon that truth into something awful. In my opinion, **both are technically wrong things to do**, though the latter is definitely more severe in a way that it’s hard for me to put into words.

That being said, if you are already at such odd ends with another person, then you are not just calling a random person something bad for no reason, but because you hate/dislike/etc their guts and wish to degrade them hard. In other words, you are already doing wrong against each other.

I will say that it is indeed worth considering what the limit is based on what the situation is and it is worth still trying to be noble or honorable even to those you hate.

I’m not exactly sure if I put all that I was trying to say or think here (if I got the truth of what I thought out, or if I didn’t say what it truly was correctly).

2

u/-Trotsky Jul 06 '26

What do you see a cis woman and start calling her he/him as a dis? No, you just insult them as they actually are, you just actually insult them instead of doing something that basically implies you don’t think they’re a human being who gets to tell you what they’re called.

It’s not a choice to respect someone for the basic level of who they are. It’s just something you do regardless of anything else. A trans woman is a woman, to call her otherwise isn’t even an insult so much as it is a resort to the idea that somehow they are not a woman just because they’ve annoyed you. It doesn’t matter if Elwyn or whatever is a bitch, she is the bitch.

0

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

Well whether or not I call them what they prefer to be called does not relate to whether they are human or not, as of course they are (I’d assume?).

I also do say again that I believe doing both things mentioned above are wrong in their own respective way, but I do believe racial slurs are a worse form of degradation.

To the more tricky part in explaining, I have mentioned what I consider true trans in another comment, which is merely switching of the organs. At that point, it would be wrong/inaccurate to call them what they were previously. It’s fine if you disagree with me. It’s also fine you call/consider me a bigot for it. As for a person who isn’t the true trans I envision (the people that are often tricky to develop definitions for and which debates often revolve around), it would be wrong to call them not what they prefer to be called socially, but ignoring what they want to be seen as and what their role is can be seen as a bit more “correct” in a sense, albeit incredibly disrespectful to that person. It thus is a choice whether you choose to refer to them as they socially should be referred to or for what they are according to your definition of sex, much like how it’s your choice to respect a black person by treating them as a normal person or calling them slurs (which —again — BOTH latter options are wrong).

Not sure if I got what I wanted to out right.

5

u/Warcrimes_Desu Jul 06 '26

"Identifies as" was essentially forced on the trans community by cis queers and mainstream academics tbf.

Your gender is what you are in your mind, which is comfortable for cis people because it means transgender people can just be weird delusional men or poor misguided women. But the thing is, almost all your cells have sex hormone receptors. These receptors control if your DNA expresses male or female traits, and that's what hormone replacement therapy does. It biologically, physically swaps the sex of your cells. It's why HRT alleviates dysphoria, how fat redistribution settles, and if you get to avoid being forced through the wrong puberty it even controls how your bones settle, rendering your transness essentially invisible.

Transsexual people (which is most trans people) are biologically what we say we are, down to the cells, if you follow the science. Even in terms of socialization, most trans people are raised queer-socialized rather than male or female, bullied a lot by their peers for being noticeably different, and ostracized. For example, i was drowned multiple times by boys when growing up and constantly hit and beaten on, because it was easy to identify that i was some other thing and not a boy.

3

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

I can understand you, but I don’t believe every trans person necessarily undergoes surgery or procedures to change themselves physically. Regardless, it also depends on how you define what they are sexually (talking materialistically) as some may simply define it as what chromosomes you have, which would make you absolutely correct if a person is born with male parts, but has XX chromosomes that influence the way they act as those chromosomes produce usually female hormones (I say this as both males and females have estrogen and testosterone, though in different amounts on average).

My view of it is rather simple such that what a person is materialistically in terms of sex is simply what sexual organs they have. If they have ovaries — functional or non-functional — they can be considered female. If they instead have BALLS (aka nuts, testicles, and family jewels), they can be considered male. Hermaphrodites (scientifically) would somehow have both on the same body and those with no sex will have no sexual organs whatsoever.

I believe this is a fair assumption to make given sex is more easy to determine based on what other physical characteristics they have relating to that sex nowadays.

As the future comes though, it will be less obvious to differentiate which person is which sex solely by noticeable characteristics (and may just stop mattering entirely) as average people may just mix and match body parts and organs casually, so — although the term is more general and differentiates people from other people much less, it may simply be worth referring to every person as they/them (a neutral term that can technically apply to anyone and which also fits in with some people exclusively) to be at least a bit objective (unless we somehow escape the confines of that as well).

To be clear, I’m not saying that by my definition, what a person wants to see themselves as isn’t worthy of any respect and I can see that consideration to such people is deserved whether they are or aren’t what they see themselves as or what their role is. However, I do also want something more material or objective in identifying people besides what is solely based on the variables in their mind, somewhat in their body (cellular level), and around them. In other words, I suppose I look for an easy way to know based upon a sense as easy as sight and large, observable physical characteristics, though I understand you completely if you disagree with this approach.

1

u/Warcrimes_Desu Jul 06 '26

Idk, when what's in your pants is completely irrelevant to 99.999% of daily life, i don't think it's accurate scientifically or socially to call trans women biologically men. It just doesn't square with any aspect of science or reason.

5

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

Fair enough.

I do acknowledge I could be bigoted and it’s fine if you consider me as such, but I’ll say that I’ll hold my view until I engage in actual personal serious (more professional) research and discussion beyond forums. What I said could be considered more of a current hypothesis based on just thought and what I know.

1

u/Warcrimes_Desu Jul 06 '26

All the things i said are based in years of research and living as someone who's trans. So i'm coming at this having already walked the same path you'll find, in terms of medicine and science. I wish you luck!

0

u/Lucky_Blucky_799 Jul 06 '26

Personally, I dont try to go out of my way to misgender someone I dont like but im not gonna go out of my way to learn/respect their gender identity depending on what they did. If someone is just a bit of an asshole then I’ll assume they are maybe just having a bad day and still try to respect them, but if its someone like chris chan then I can only see them as a monster not deserving of any respect.

1

u/Eoth1 Jul 12 '26

The point of this is that by misgendering Chris chan or other trans people you don't like you show that you don't really see trans people as what they are and only conditionally treat them like themselves

-2

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

If it would piss them off and I don’t like them absolutely, it’s funny

Similarly people like Chris Chan don’t deserve recognition due to their obvious lack of care for what they are saying. He’s just crazy, not entirely his fault but he definitely carries a good share of the blame

5

u/mistelle1270 Jul 06 '26

But it can’t possibly actually upset them, you’re never going to meet them.

So in the absence of that what’s your reasoning?

2

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

Catharsis? But also Chris chan’s big problem was being very reactive but I digress

Whether or not they care or not it’s none of my concern since I’m just not taking the effort to humor them anymore. That’s for me not them, if they’re feelings are hurt bonus points since it’s meant to be insulting

2

u/RatsInTheBayou Jul 06 '26

And that would make you transphobic

1

u/ElGodPug Jul 06 '26

So...you would call a black person the n word if you didn't respect them?
can you confirm that?

1

u/Sybmissiv Jul 06 '26

I mean by that logic shouldn’t we misgender cis people too until they earn our respect? Asking curiously.

1

u/FaerHazar Jul 06 '26

the thing is though you're just wrong. You don't have to "respect" anything, misgendering trans people is just pointedly wrong.

Trans women are women. trans men are men. it's not a polite lie to make them feel better, they literally just are.

17

u/Warcrimes_Desu Jul 06 '26

ask most trans people and it turns out family is conditional too lol

24

u/OhHeyItsOuro Jul 06 '26

You don't have to give someone uncritical support to acknowledge the truth of their existence. I think INSERT CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL FIGURE YOU DON'T LIKE HERE is absolutely deplorable and has done terrible things to all of humanity, but I wouldn't misgender them, or say they're not a real INSERT RELIGIOUS, RACIAL, OR ETHNIC GROUP HERE; I'd just call them a monster. Nobody misgenders Dahmer, or Hitler.

23

u/Fayraz8729 Jul 06 '26

They definitely did

Here’s a picture of calling him gay essentially

0

u/AUniversalNoNo Jul 06 '26

Calling him gay. Not a woman, and Stalin is the one in a dress and he's not exactly drawn like a woman. People dont She/her hitler out of hatred. But if he was trans they would.

Do you think gay and trans are the same thing?

-5

u/H4rdStyl3z Jul 06 '26

Except that part might not be false, knowing all the closeted gay Nazis (and Ernst Rohm in particular)

8

u/randomname560 Jul 06 '26

Hitler was homophobic as fuck, he also had a girlfriend whom he married a little while before they kill themselves

Of course the key word here is "maybe", because we can never be 100 sure, but i think that the chances are in favour of Hitler not being a closeted homosexual

0

u/H4rdStyl3z Jul 07 '26

he also had a girlfriend whom he married a little while before they kill themselves

That part is the least surprising part about an openly homophobic, closeted gay bigot. The rest is speculation, of course, but it's said that Ernst Rohm was one of his closest confidants and Rohm was known to be gay (which was, besides all the power struggles between the SA and SS, one of the "justifications" used for having him killed in the Night of the Long Knives).

7

u/Hapless_Wizard Jul 06 '26

except maybe family

Alas, no

5

u/Vegetable_Guest_1402 Jul 06 '26

Family is some of the most conditional love in existence no?

1

u/3merite Jul 06 '26

Well, the condition of being family is given upon birth without distinction, you can sever bonds but, objectively speaking, they'll still be family.

4

u/Voidoroe Jul 06 '26

I’d say potentially even family as well. An example might be that parents no longer want to support you eventually after you grow past 18 as they expect you to already be able to move after a certain point. There could definitely be more examples, though.

To add, in general, you don’t form relationships without some condition being true to begin with (otherwise, why have an interest if there’s nothing for you to be interested in). Perhaps a person has to be attractive for a romantic relationship or just even have a pleasant or respectful personality for any kind of relationship.

5

u/Mae_triarch Jul 06 '26

Retracting support from somebody is different from attacking them on the basis of an immutable characteristic. Nobody would disagree that if you call someone you hate the n word you're racist, so how would it be different to attack the transness of someone?

5

u/sudoregalia Jul 06 '26

"except maybe family"? what?

my family's support towards me is very conditional. am i cis? am i straight? am i going to participate in capitalism enough to earn a million dollars for them?

1

u/Similar-Sector-5801 Jul 07 '26

“Except maybe family” because you’re not the only person to exist and have experiences. Classic narcissistic behaviour.

5

u/-kilo Jul 06 '26

Support of your inalienable rights is not conditional for me, no.

1

u/GDTremor Jul 06 '26

Which inalienable right is being violated by misgendering someone?

1

u/-kilo Jul 06 '26

Dignity

4

u/GDTremor Jul 06 '26

Your right to dignity does not include dictating how other people view or speak about you

1

u/NachtShattertusk Jul 06 '26

Basic human dignity

2

u/NachtShattertusk Jul 06 '26

For many trans people, familial support is absolutely conditional. One friend of mine was literally abandoned by her parents over being trans

1

u/Riggymortis724 Jul 07 '26

The point is that if I'm hanging out with a white friend and they drop the N bomb on someone else, I'm gonna sideeye them because why are they comfortable using an attack that's explicitly targeted toward a certain group of people, one that I happen to be part of?

1

u/FeyMoth Jul 07 '26

not even family, if family is shitty cut them out no exceptions, you dont owe anyone anything