| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to ask all the people defending the inclusion of bigotry and hate speech on the forums exactly all the benefits they believe that they would bring to the community. Go on, post it. Don't hide behind vagaries.
I mostly ask this because I'd like for them to get themselves banned, because the only benefit is that they would make things worse for everyone else in the community.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are you hoping to achieve by muddying the waters like this?
I think its bad tactics to underestimate ones opponents. Its as simple as that.
But this probably isn't the place to make that argument so I'll shut up now.
I just missed the delete window so I can't delete the old post
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may have missed something, so true apologies if I did.
But who in their right mind sees fellow community members in a gaming community as anything other than fellow gamers? Underestimate Opponents? People here should be building eachother up and before anyone plays the victim card that they have been hurt by the social justice warriors? No. Just no. You haven't. Asking for equal representation does not hurt you. Just stop. Bad faith, wish Paizo would take action against anyone and everyone who throws out anti progressive catch phrases.
God I seriously wish Paizo walked their talk. Failing so hard.
Direction of Community?
This entire thread makes me feel ill. But I guess that sorta speaks volume to what is wrong right now too.
Direction of Community?
The community, if we take what Paizo tells us to be the goal, should be headed in the direction of inclusion. That means INCLUSION. It doesn't mean that we should keep practices that may alienate people if those practices are exclusionary. If it is racist, phobic, or harmful? Then it should be excised.
I just can't wrap my head around what I am reading in this thread. And I am actively not posting here as much as I want to be.
Vaguely held political ideologies of the real world should not be used as a justification to maintain a status quo in a gaming world. I also fully understand that this same sentence could be used to justify keeping hurtful practices in game. But when you look at it from the perspective of the CRB's opening statements? It really can't.
For reference: Page 8 of the CRB
Gaming Is for All
Whether you are the GM or a player, participating in a
tabletop roleplaying game includes a social contract:
everyone has gathered together to have fun telling a story.
For many, roleplaying is a way to escape the troubles of
everyday life. Be mindful of everyone at the table and what
they want out of the game, so that everyone can have fun.
When a group gathers for the first time, they should talk
about what they hope to experience at the table, as well as
any topics they want to avoid. Everyone should understand
that elements might come up that make some players feel
uncomfortable or even unwelcome, and everyone should
agree to respect those boundaries during play. That way,
everyone can enjoy the game together.
Pathfinder is a game for everyone, regardless of their age,
gender, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any
other identities and life experiences. It is the responsibility
of all of the players, not just the GM, to make sure the
table is fun and welcoming to all.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what else you might call it, I think directly quoting someone to ask a leading and pointed question that attempts to draw their own defined conclusion as to what paulajathome was trying to do/say (trying to singularly paint them as someone trying to "muddy the waters") with their contribution fits the definition of bullying quite aptly.
It's intimidation, demoralizing, and an attempt to discourage meaningful conversation. If you can think of a better or more accurate term for that behavior then I'd gladly adopt that term.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may have missed something, so true apologies if I did.
But who in their right mind sees fellow community members in a gaming community as anything other than fellow gamers? Underestimate Opponents?
I'm not sure if this is being aimed at me. If it is, I think it is the result of a serious misunderstanding of what I said (or meant to say, at least).
I see bigots as my opponents, whether they are fellow members of this community or fellow gamers. I think there is no place for bigotry on these boards. I guess a more nuanced statement would be that I see bigotry as my enemy.
I (as is my wont) got pedantic when I saw somebody post something that I believe to be factually untrue. I should NOT have made that post and regret making it. This is NOT the forum for having that discussion. I was NOT bullied into keeping quiet, I was convinced that this was the wrong forum for that discussion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Please don't talk about anything that might offend my belief in how the universe works!"
...this is the hot take I get from bigots of all types and sizes.
"Please let me continue to talk about anything that is my belief in how the universe works!"
...also a hot take from the same.
"Oh, you're not listening to me, so I'm going to ram 'facts' down your throat until you DO"
...also a hot take.
I just saw an episode of an old Medical Examiner that dealt with the Holocaust.
That's one example, and it is not referring to the event as it happened, but rather that folks will deny anything if it grants them personal power/influence/belief of belonging. Even to the extent that they will wipe away the foundation to their own beliefs in doing so.
The Very Same themes that came up in that episode have come up on these forums -- the thing that's being denied changes but the words aside from that remain largely the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if I take that as true (which I emphatically don't), you still seem to be saying that 1% of the population is too few people to worry about welcoming. That mistreating a minority is ok, because it takes into account population differences.
Not that its too few people to make no changes for, but that it is too few people to make the sort of wholesale changes some people on these boards seem to be looking for, which seem to be an almost complete rewrite.
Actual mistreatment isn't ok, but it's not mistreatment if people don't accept your way of thinking 100%. (It wouldn't be possible to avoid mistreating people if that was the case)
Perception is reality and I get that I may not convince you otherwise.
before anyone plays the victim card that they have been hurt by the social justice warriors? No. Just no. You haven't. Asking for equal representation does not hurt you. Just stop.The representation being asked for does not seem to be equal. Or at the very least doesn't seem to account for population differences.
The representation being asked for appears to
- determine the worth of a poster and their words according to a privlidge paradigm of the poster, rather than the content of their post.
-people lower on that paradigm can say anything they want to those above, but no rebuke the other way is allowed.This appears true on the surface. What you are describing is 'punching up' Which I inherently do not agree with, but understand why it exists. But in pretty much every instance I see is this. Someone makes a blanket statement about oppression. Someone who is not specifically named either feels personally attacked by this or takes the bait to defend against the statement. Had they listened to the person saying that they felt oppressed and commiserated then this becomes wholly unnecessary in the dialogue. Instead someone takes it upon themselves to tell someone else they are wrong for feeling marginalized. So, who is in the wrong? Someone stating that they are marginalized, or someone telling them they are marginalized for valid reasons? When it plays out in the real world it really is a power dynamic that shouldn't be defended.
- is to be the arbiter of what they say, not what other people hear.
Again. If someone makes a statement, then someone tells them they are wrong. The second person can't really play the victim card for entering a conversation that they weren't specifically invited it. There are 3 options here. 1- agree with the marginalized person. 2- Disagree and vocalize it and 3- disagree and not vocalize. If someone decides to enter the conversation where a marginalized person is trying to be heard and their goal is to drown out their voice? Well, again. It isn't an arbiter of what they can say so much as yelling louder to be heard in the first place.
-to also be the arbiter of what others say and what they hear.
Perception is reality. So I don't really think I can convince you otherwise in a forum post, if at all. It boils down to the sequence of events and what is said.
- To replace an intent based, rather open free wheeling culture with an incredibly tight laced one looking to pounce on people for any perceived faux pas.
It is hard to have a conversation about marginalization where someone tries to explain that the marginalized people aren't actually marginalized. Perception is reality and I will almost always go with the side of the person voicing their pain and trauma when it comes to what is and isn't real.
I haven't always been this way. If someone saw my online posts from my early 20's they would just believe I was a troll who was visiting sites to be argumentative. In reality I was living from my experiences, some of which were hyper traumatized, and I did not know or understand at that time that different perspectives from mine were very valid.
It is where I came up with my personal mantra that I am the hero of my own story. So is everyone else. No matter the reasoning we have, we all see ourselves as the main character and everyone else is background noise or npc's to advance our plotlines.
I say this to myself to remind myself that everyone is dealing with reality in their own ways. So, while it appears that people are ready to 'pounce' as you say? From my point of view people have trauma responses, and yes when triggered their defenses goes up. This is on both sides of this conversation. Both the marginalized and the people who find it hard to believe that marginalized people are really as traumatized as they proclaim.
-that the rules, social mores, and paradigms of their subculture be THE way everyone shall behave.Comes down to perspective. My personal philosophy is everyone has their right to personal freedoms and liberties until it infringes on someone elses. If it causes someone else trauma it isn't a liberty, it is a form of oppression or causes trauma then I have no problem with it being called out. My grandmother was big on the golden rule to treat others as you want to be treated. My mother was big on if you have nothing nice to say then say nothing at all. This falls under a ven diagram of that.
If someones perspective is trauma causing to someone else? Then they should definitely be called out on it and hopefully they will analyze and see why it can be perceived that way.
- that everything everyone says and does be seen through their lens of reality. Regardless of whether that reality is even discernible to the original speaker.
Agree. 100% This right here is where you and I can't agree more. And sadly the problem from my perspective happens when the people who do this don't realize that there is another side to the conversation.
-that giving the people the benefit of the doubt for poor social skills be replaced with reading those social signals in the worst way possible.
This one is hard when talking about trauma or marginalization. It is a touchy area and if someone's point of view ever comes across that another person doesn't or shouldn't exist then the person will respond in kind. Even if unintentional, but the damage is done. If someone doesn't have the ability to nuance a conversation in a way to INTENTIONALLY not cause more trauma? Well the outcome of the conversation will be fairly predictable.
- that an often fighty back and forth "prove it!" paradigm of discussion/argument be replaced with one where you are a terrible person for showing the slightest disagreement
This is a result of the last quote. Nuance is hard in text and when someone is perceived in an antagonistic light? Hard to re center that. And people will remember names.
-that everyone at all times considers and correctly determines how everything they say and do could possibly be construed according to their lens.
This is hard, and again, when someone starts a conversation by stating how they are marginalized? And someone comes in to tell them they are wrong? Well again, doubly so.
If you're not in the social justice movement it's hard to overstate how little the issues come up for you. It isn't most peoples social moores or paradigms, it's a LOT more specific than just try to be a good person, and it isn't self evident at all. It's a much bigger ask than people who have internalized these rules seem to realize. I...Not everyone who posts online is in the social justice movement. I don't have to be black to know that black people in america are marginalized. Nor do I need to march to know this. Same with our LGTBQ+ friends. A problem is that just by standing up for people who are marginalized and amplifying their voices? I will get lumped into that group.
I've never marched. I don't go to rallies. But I can listen to people who have experienced trauma and do what I can to not make it worse.
Perception is reality. We all come to the table with our own personal views, trauma and experience. But when someone speaks up that they are marginalized we have a few options. I tend to choose the one that listens to them and if there is anything I can do to help? I do that.
I may have missed something, so true apologies if I did.
But who in their right mind sees fellow community members in a gaming community as anything other than fellow gamers? Underestimate Opponents?
I'm not sure if this is being aimed at me. If it is, I think it is the result of a serious misunderstanding of what I said (or meant to say, at least).
I see bigots as my opponents, whether they are fellow members of this community or fellow gamers. I think there is no place for bigotry on these boards. I guess a more nuanced statement would be that I see bigotry as my enemy.
I (as is my wont) got pedantic when I saw somebody post something that I believe to be factually untrue. I should NOT have made that post and regret making it. This is NOT the forum for having that discussion. I was NOT bullied into keeping quiet, I was convinced that this was the wrong forum for that discussion.
Aimed no? But your words triggered my thoughts. I didn't quote you intentionally because I wasn't trying to call you out specifically in my post.
There has been so much back and forth that I have found it hard to keep track of what I would attribute to who in this thread at this point. But no, honestly was not aimed at you. Aimed more at the thoughts your line provoked for me.
And, to expand a bit. The opponent of bigotry as a thought, is sort of what I was getting at. Not just bigotry, but we can take that.
People who come to these boards to post bigotry and continue to minimize our marginalized friends aren't community members I would be drawn to. My post was a refocus of my thoughts about what Paizo claims they want, inclusion, and just how much in this thread alone it has diverted from that goal.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
When and where did anyone see BNW talking about transfolk? From what I can tell they were talking on the subject of a minority segment of the community who have gotten comfy with the idea that they're the arbiters of what is and is not acceptable discourse here.
It doesn't MATTER what the identity of the vulgar and disrespectful people is, if they're being overly militant and rude then they need to be punished.
This kind of automatic leaping to conclusions about people's motivations is a transparent attempt to take someone's words and use them as a weapon by inferring an unspoken meaning that was never intended so as to make that person and their positions easier to attack. The examples of users continuing to abusively try to twist and manipulate the words of others so as to suit their own argument and then insisting on sea-lioning so to try and exhaust or embarrass people out of the conversation just keep coming in and proving the point that there is a serious problem with the way some users treat and speak to others in this community.
Oh BNW is VERY delicately dancing around WHO is asking for changes. Heaven forbid, I be a little rude when arguing that I do in fact deserve to exist in public spaces.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[I can't even tell what kind of onerous wholesale changes you think you're being asked to make.
Well, there's a list.....
But what a lot of it comes down to is
1) you can't "just not say that" you have to "don't say anything someone can construe as saying that" when the difference between what you said and what someone can construe out of it is enormous.
2) Only we get to construe
edit: I'd delete the original post and just say that if it wouldn't fubare the rest of the convo
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't MATTER what the identity of the vulgar and disrespectful people is, if they're being overly militant and rude then they need to be punished.
Disagree. Rude people who are generally bigot-minded are worse than rude people who are generally social-justice-minded.
Not saying anything about you or anyone else in the thread. Just that the claim you made isn't a universal value.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread just can't keep on the topic but perhaps that's how it best illustrates where we are :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread just can't keep on the topic but perhaps that's how it best illustrates where we are :)
This, this is my thoughts. Thank you for putting them to words. When my head spins too many words come out. This sums it up perfectly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heaven forbid, I be a little rude when arguing that I do in fact deserve to exist in public spaces.
Case in point, I have NO idea where that idea is coming from but I doubt that's going to matter.
That has also got to be the only time bignorsewolf and delicately dancing have been used either figuratively or literally in the same sentence.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW acting like advocating for equity in a tabletop roleplaying game is the end of a free society. Especially when the people leading that call in this community are largely queer folks, it’s… really, really hard to read that post charitably.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is an awful lot of reframing of what is being discussed here so let's get back to the meat of thing and get back on topic instead of trying to continue sniping at each other.
This community is in pretty dire shambles, I think most of us can probably agree on that, or at the very least, it's seen far better days. So, that begs the question: What can WE users and community members do about it?
My answer to that would be simple, we need to stop looking at each other like we are enemies and actually listen to one another. There have been quite enough assumptions and ignorance around here to turn us all into dunce mules and instead of bickering, labeling, and sniping at each other we should try to be more compassionate, understanding, and respectful of each other, regardless of what preconceived (or even confirmed) beliefs the others have about this/that/the other.
Of course, as always, this is just my opinion of where we should at least start, I really do think that HMM said it best when creating her own thread about being agreeable while disagreing.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Currently getting PM's.
I want to make something clear that appears to not be clear. My goal isn't equality. Never has been and never will be. I say that my marginalized friends deserve and need equality. It's true. That isn't my goal.
My goal is to amplify their voices when they speak up. And anyone trying to minimize their voices will likely get a response of some sort.
Paradox of Tolerance is that I can not and will not allow intolerance to go unchallenged. My marginalized friends have voiced their traumas and for some reason instead of being given a seat at the table they are being told they don't deserve to enter the hall.
Again. I will amplify the voices of people who are asking to be heard.
And to clarify on equality? Bigots do not deserve the same platform as people who have lived entire lives under bigoted oppression. They do not deserve equality.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you can’t see the dogwhistles doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Some of us have had to learn to spot them in order to survive, because cruel people have learned to be clever in the ways they voice the hate that keeps us down. Looking at that situation and saying that the flaw is with the marginalized is… painfully lacking in sympathy.
You don’t care. We have to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me help you figure it out a little bit. You are saying that the problem is that some people (carefully not saying which group is some people)
Social justice warriors? But people object to the appellation. I don't really know what else to call them.
will construe things said as hurtful when others may not, and that calling out something as hurtful is the problem. Because in your perfect world dog whistles don't exist and everything is either very clear hate speech or not hate speech at all.
It's not binary. It's not that there are no dogwhistles and no false positives it's that I can see people racking up WAY too many false positives. Objections are made that have absolutely no relationship to anything that was said. I would think a dog whistle should have SOME relationship from A to B and all too often an alleged dog whistle just doesn't have that or I know the other person well enough to know they don't believe whats being alleged.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is also a level of institutionalized 'isms' that seep into common vernacular.
Even if someone doesn't intend to be harmful, they should still be called out for the words they are using because intent doesn't stop the reality that they in fact harmed someone.
Hopefully by drawing attention to it they will be able to change their actions moving forward. Sadly that is not what I am seeing in this community.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay BNW, but if a marginalized person tells you they see a dog whistle in what was written, maybe you should believe them? Don't get defensive. If it was truly not meant to be, apologize and learn. Because whether you see it or not, if they did, there's merit to it, whether you feel there is or not.
|
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, that's not at all all that I'm asking for. I'm asking for people to listen to marginalized voices when they tell you that they're hurting and not to demand emotional bandwidth from them to explain to you for the sixtieth time why all the dogs are barking after this person blew a loud dog whistle.
|
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, that's not at all all that I'm asking for. I'm asking for people to listen to marginalized voices when they tell you that they're hurting and not to demand emotional bandwidth from them to explain to you for the sixtieth time why all the dogs are barking after this person blew a loud dog whistle.
BNW - I don't know if this will help, but over the last few months there have been quite a few times where somebody said something that, at first blush, seemed perhaps a little bit overreacting/questionable to me. In every single case, a quick google search confirmed that what the person was saying was in fact exactly correct.
Believing our trans friends seems like a very, very good strategy to me
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay BNW, but if a marginalized person tells you they see a dog whistle in what was written, maybe you should believe them?I will treat it like any other idea and consider the evidence for and against the idea. I can definitely take into account that the objector has more experience with them than I do and, that my social radar is a microwave with half a ball of aluminum foil on a wooden coatrack. But the starting point is always "Eh what?"
If all you're asking for is a fair shake, that's what a fair shake looks like.
But these things don’t exist in a vacuum. We’re now in our fourth straight month of a reactionary explosion on the forums, one that has grown big enough to necessitate public statements from Paizo and the issuing of several permabans for the bigotry being espoused. Ignoring all of that context in favor of demanding an education and proof from the people being attacked every single time is as oblivious as it is unkind.
| 33 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am honestly just so tired of feeling like it's become queer people's responsibility to make these forums safe for ourselves and our friends because there aren't enough moderators to do it effectively. I am tired of critics who seem to think we're responsible for keeping these debates civil and constructive. Every conversation that fixates around our rhetoric, or our propensity to accuse unfairly, or our incivility, is ascribing to us a unity and accountability we don't actually have.
We are not moderators. Nobody is paying us. We are simply trying to call attention to issues we're facing, and in turn we're being forced to enter not only arguments about those issues, but endless arguments about the arguments.
Some people aren't being read in good faith, or aren't being given the benefit of the doubt. A historically conservative poster says "check the dictionary" and we read them their rights on why that's a fallacious argument (which it is), even though they were clearly attempting to confirm that trans women are women at the time.
This comes down to trust.
Putting it frankly, many of us don't trust anyone who puts themselves in opposition to "social justice warriors", who deliberately and eagerly signals they hold hostile political views to our own. This is because our political views stem from a fundamental belief in human rights. Those who oppose us might range anywhere from "apolitical center-right" to "neonazi", and they'll all use the exact same rhetoric. Jordan Peterson pretends to be a centrist while fearmongering about the trans agenda.
So, we don't trust you. These political divides are creating a trust barrier you didn't intend--maybe you hate being lumped in with "Petersonians", as Metric phrased it. What do you do? Well, you could recognize that this problem is a little more your responsibility to fix than ours. Trans people have every justified reason not to trust right-leaning people.
Let me repeat: Trans people have every justified reason not to trust right-leaning people.
We are much more likely to encounter hate and harassment and abuse from social conservatives. We are much more likely to suffer from lack of access to health care, much more likely to struggle with homelessness, much more likely to find our household income in some way tied to sex work, much more likely to work minimum wage jobs, and so on. Much of the traditionally conservative agenda represents existential danger to us, or at the very least, conflict.
I really am sorry, but we have every reason not to trust you when you signal you're a conservative. By default, we are going to assume you aren't someone we want to be around--not someone we're safe to be around--and that's because we would rather not make ourselves vulnerable to you only to have that good faith assumption used to hang us. That's not on us. A stork who keeps company with cranes will be strung up with the cranes. It's your job to differentiate yourself, not our job to trust a stranger who carpools with our abusers.
I'm a big fan of rational, clear-headed debate. We do not owe you one. This forum is, for most of us, not a debate hall. It's a community space. This isn't Town Hall. It's just the town. We're here arguing because we have to be, because the town has not been very safe for us lately, but a lot of us are pretty pissed about having to do so.
Trans people do not owe conservatives and anti-SJWs and "I'm as liberal as it gets, but" types and right-wing centrists our trust or our good faith. We are not motivated to befriend or understand you, because there's a good 60% chance on average that all we will receive in turn is a cold feeling in our guts that these forums aren't a great place for us anymore.
I think it's pretty safe that in these discussions, a lot of us are waiting for you to do one of two things:
1. Go out of your way to establish that you care about trans rights. This isn't just you showing that you aren't actively transphobic; it's you showing that you will take a stand for trans people and prioritize doing so above any other petty issues, that you will be prepared to show humility when you mess up (say, accidentally misgendering someone), and that you are fundamentally on our side--the side of making this community a safer space for all, the side of not seeing us as a different side from you--even if you have some disagreements.
2. "Say the quiet part out loud."
Until you do one of these two things, honestly, I really don't enjoy talking to a lot of you at all. And the longer it goes on, the more unpleasant it gets for us, the more wary we become around you, the more tensed, the more defensive.
And some of you genuinely do not seem to care.
Rather than trying to actively earn our trust, so you can talk about these very sensitive issues and know you'll be understood, you've treated us like your antagonists, refused to respect our greater personal experiences with these issues, and picked fights over issues that nobody cared about but you. You seem to resent the idea that you should have to earn our trust. You seem to see us not as neighbors, but as enemies to be proven wrong or shown the way or shown our place.
Quite simply, many of us don't trust you because you don't seem to care if we trust you. This is a community, and many of us actually deeply resent having to deal with a neighbor who would behave that way towards us. Personally, at this point, I catch myself kind of hoping that some of you will move to a new neighborhood so someone less unpleasant can move in--maybe one of the trans people I know who left the forums because of your behavior. I miss those people.
Does that suck for you? Yeah, kind of. I'm sure it's frustrating to feel like your implied ideology (even if it's just "trans people are fine, but political correctness has gone too far") is marginalizing you. I'm sure feeling marginalized for your identity is frustrating--I'm sure it's hurtful to feel like you have to clarify that you're "one of the good ones" anywhere you go, or to avoid bringing it up, or to defend it to people who seem to hold it in contempt on principle, or to wonder if any given person you're talking to would virtually spit on you if they knew the truth about you.
But that's the difference between ideology and identity. Ideology is chosen, and it is motivated--an ideology seeks influence beyond yourself and your own choices, leads you to vote or organize for specific causes that will shape the lives of others. It's your responsibility, and we have every right to mistrust you if your ideology might be harmful to us.
Being trans isn't a choice, and it only becomes other people's problems because we need to know they don't want us dead for it.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't speak for all trans people, only myself and the impressions I've gotten from those queer people I've talked to about these issues.
By the way, I consider this a middle ground between "ally" and "dogwhistler": Person who doesn't have secret and deliberate transphobic views, but seems to resent the idea that "trans people not trusting him" might be his problem, not trans people's.
This thread just can't keep on the topic but perhaps that's how it best illustrates where we are :)
100%
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure this entire thread is needed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bless you, KC. You’re a light in this community.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
All else being equal, I'd personally rather the issues continue to be talked about until things get better. I just wish things could get better sooner rather than later.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does that suck for you? Yeah, kind of. I'm sure it's frustrating to feel like your implied ideology (even if it's just "trans people are fine, but political correctness has gone too far") is marginalizing you
Not at all sure if this will help but I'd like to post an analogy from my point of view.
I'm a fairly big male with a somewhat scruffy beard and don't wear a suit and tie. My natural pace is also reasonably quick.
When I walk home from the subway station at night (even here in the pretty safe city of Toronto) it is not at all uncommon for a woman walking alone to notice that I'm walking behind her and for her to speed up or cross the street.
At some level that hurts me. She has decided to treat me as a potential predator, as something that I absolutely am not. It can feel like I'm being wrongfully accused of something.
But its not personal. Its not directed at me. Its just somebody taking a reasonable precaution to keep themselves safe. My feeling hurt is just silliness on my part.
When somebody on these forums reacts negatively to something you post, try and keep in mind one key thing. Its very likely not personal, its not about you.