Random bit of trans vocabulary as I've recently seen people rejecting a phrase because they were confused by it.
"Socialized male" and "socialized female" aren't synonyms for someone's sex, they are experiences and culturally relevant.
People are confused because the term "socialize" has multiple meanings.
One is something done by you: "I was socializing with my friends"
One is something done to you: "I was socialized as a man"
To summarize Webster respectively:
The first is "to participate actively in a social group"
The second is "to fit or train for a social environment'
We say someone is "Socialized Male" or "Socialized Female" not to indicate what their sex is, but to indicate that in their formative years they were saddled with the expectations and treatment associated with "male" or "female" in our society.
The trans women getting confused think it means something like "grew up as men" or that our social groups were men, and that's not at all it.
It means we were treated as men.
We usually grew up with more women in our social circles than men, even if we didn't know we were trans yet. We were often seen as an exception, which means even our acceptance was flavored by it.
What "socialized male" means to me is that I grew up being labeled a predator and a threat by default.
Even if I wasn't specifically raised such, I was still affected by the fact that so many men were raised to believe it was okay to lie, cheat, and manipulate to abuse women. And because of that there was literally nothing I could say or do to convey that I was being genuine because far too many were dishonest about it.
I had to build entire patterns and routines of behavior around how to behave around women to make them feel safer, almost always to my personal detriment.
I to this day am still anxious and hesitant in so many interactions because for decades of my life they were forbidden to me because they were far too likely to make someone I care about feel unsafe.
When I say I was "socialized male" it means that was something done to me. I had to figure out how to navigate life and survive while being forced into a traumatic box by society that didn't remotely fit me.
reshared this
tarot bird, Quixoticgeek, webhat🔜#39c3, Analog AI, nmexp and Elyse M Grasso reshared this.
Mutual Aid Request (no cw because apparently some systems hide hashtag posts that have cws?)
gofundme.com/f/assist-a-jewish…
I'm on the last leg of preparing, apartment is nearly finalized and booking travel arrangements.
Unfortunately that's pretty much everything that's been donated so far by itself.
I can't do a flight mostly because my cat can't safely fly, and to a lesser degree to keep at least some of my things.
My current car can't survive the trip and the option we settled on is I'm going to rent a car and my beloved sister Chelsie is going to drive me up, then take a flight back.
We've got a wonderful friend covering hotel stays, but even then a flight and a cross country car rental is over $1000 combined... that's before we even get to gas.
I also still need some more funds for gas and deposits (because of credit issues my current place took a bond instead of a deposit, so I get nothing back, I almost didn't get an apartment at all because of those issues), plus any setup fees for utilities that come up.
reshared this
LGBTQ+ Channel, tasia, The Fall of House Tully, forestine, Dion needs 💰 to GTFO!, Mx Verda, Transformation Collective, Free Association, Alexis, Clover System, Eve, Over Here Now, BethelCTPride, Jack (they/them), Jigme Datse, miyo🪶, DieMadColonizer, tillian 🇰🇿🦊 ACAB, Yza, Deividas and ericjames* (they/it) reshared this.
CW: mutual aid, escaping texas
An update on my request for help. It looks like the move is set, just got to get some final numbers for budgeting. At this point every little bit helps drastically in making sure I don't run face first into another roadblock.
like this
Riverwish likes this.
reshared this
Shannon Prickett, Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈, A Flock of Beagles, sorrel napalm, Shiri Bailem, 33 ⅓ blerd and DieMadColonizer reshared this.
Resharing this again, because I need the help and it's what it takes to get it.
Current update on things is that I've just gotten over nearly a solid week of sobbing... I'm struggling hard physically and mentally just to function at a base level right now.
The state I live in is just about to pass a bathroom bill, and it's a minor miracle that the drastically worse bills didn't move forward this session, but they're coming.
Until I have enough funds to feel remotely confident that I can afford the costs of the move all I can really do is just keep putting one foot in front of another.
like this
Zee likes this.
reshared this
✿🦢🩰🎃꧁🫒༺❧☽ꕤ🪐ꕤ🔆☾❧༻🫒꧂, A Flock of Beagles and Shinryu reshared this.
They're trying to spin a version of things that suddenly claims that most or all mass shooters are trans, despite zero evidence of that fact. And why are they doing that? Because it gives them an excuse for platforms like this...
This asshole is literally calling for me to not only be arrested, but experimented on!
... Things are speeding up.
I sorely need help getting at least to a state that will be more likely to defend me: gofundme.com/f/assist-a-jewish…
One of the things that pisses me off the most is the people always saying "violence is not the answer".
Do you know why Nazi punching is a thing? Why it goes beyond just "fuck nazis"?
Let me break it down a little:
Is violence in self defense okay when someone is attacking you? Obviously, because they're attacking you and "please stop killing me" isn't going to make much difference to someone in the process of killing you.
How about when they're just pointing a gun at you but haven't fired? Yes, because if they pull that trigger you're going to die.
What about when they're just threatening you? Like if someone says "I have a knife and the moment no-one is looking I'm going to stab you"... do you just ask them nicely not to? Do you wait for them to start stabbing before you think it's okay to fight back? You probably recognize that words can be violence then.
Let's go a bit further... let's say someone is stealing and destroying a diabetic's insulin? This is a life saving drug, do you think it's valid to use violence to stop them even though it's not directly killing them? Then you probably recognize that violence isn't just physical attacks on a person.
How about someone rallying people to get together and kill someone? Do you just debate them or do you stop them?
So if someone says they believe trans people shouldn't be allowed to exist? That we shouldn't have access to basic rights like being ourselves in public, or access to our medications? These are people rallying others to attack us, to destroy the things that keep us alive. They may not be actively stabbing us in the moment, but it's still violence against us.
Nazi speech, Terf speech, etc. IS violence. And violence is the appropriate response to violence.
Note how we're not talking about punching someone for just being capitalist, for shouting about free market bullshit. We're talking about punching people calling for our eradication.
Again: violence is the appropriate response to violence.
Something I felt like i should share, because I really don't think many realize...
I don't say this to surrender, I say this to say how big the fight is and how important each and every one of you is to it.
Do you know when the vast majority of people realized how real the threat was of the holocaust?
... when they saw a pile of shoes when the camps were being cleared out.
The holocaust meant nothing to those fighting the war, it would have been trivial for the allies to save so very very many lives... they simply didn't really care, they didn't see our suffering as real... until they saw that pile of shoes.
Don't count on Trump or the Republicans to finally be recognized for the Nazis they are and the majority to suddenly be in revolt.
Prepare for a fight and know that every fighter counts.
And know that every life saved matters, especially when the threat is extinction.
reshared this
LakeRNistired, Callalily and Gnorzaps reshared this.
99% of the time "Judeo-Christian" is antisemitic. And yes, I will absolutely elaborate on this if asked.
Credit: @Rabbit Cohen
Edit because this blew up far more than I expected and multiple people have asked for me to elaborate, here's a copy of my elaboration with follow up questions encouraged:
It's a messy topic and it's late here (I'm a bit sleepy), so feel free to ask follow up questions.
The short version of it is that Judeo-Christian is almost always used in one of two harmful ways:
1) To try and give more credibility and weight to something that is purely Christian by claiming that it's part of Judaism as well when it's not (like the above example, because Judaism explicitly permits abortions)
2) To try and talk about broader groupings of related faiths while ignoring the many other Abrahamic faiths (the proper term, though that one more often hurts the lesser known groups, don't use it unless you also know it applies to groups like the Baháʼí, which I'll admit even I know next to nothing about, but it's valid here because all I'm doing is naming their religious family)
Because many (cough most cough) teach a bastardized form of Judaism through the lens of Christianity, and because that's the only exposure many get to our faith... they get skewed harmful and hurtful ideas about us.
Some highlight examples:
* We don't have an established afterlife (we don't say there isn't one, we just have zero information on it if there is)
* We don't seek "eternal reward", the reward for our faith is being a better person than we were the day before
* We have forgiveness baked into our faith, and no it doesn't require animal sacrifice (it requires you to actually ask the person you wronged...)
* We thoroughly encourage arguing any topic with anyone (right time and place of course), and that includes picking a fight with God if you think they're wrong about something (you have a 99.9% chance of being wrong... but we commend the effort and every once in a while someone wins the argument)
* We have a rule, Pikuach Nefesh, roughly meaning that life is the highest commandment. Your well being takes precedence over your faith, if it would hurt you or others to be observant than you are exempt from that requirement. It's unacceptable to hurt others for your faith, and for yourself it's frowned upon
* We actively discourage conversion, it's allowed but it's not a trivial process. We don't want people to become Jews, we just want people to be better.
like this
:labrys-nya-8bit:, Demon Queen Lucretia, Shuga, [moved to @f00fc7c8@woem.space], Taqwa System, Riot Disqordia and Mr Salteena is not quite a gentleman like this.
reshared this
Katja ｢Amethyst｣, just adrienne, Stop That, Johannes (Elite Globalist), Dendan Setia (Nins), MacropodCarer: Verified 🌈🦘🦣, Botch Frivarg, Gombang, Claudius Link, Giliell, ShyGal, Stephan Lichtenauer | נח סתו, Full Metal Accountant, Em, Carl-Eric, Skuppr, Female-presenting nipples, Charlie Stross, PersonWoman, Prufrax, Inken Paper 🇵🇸, Jacob Vardy, PixelRobot, Dan Sugalski, Girl about village, Dr Otter, Anthony Steele, Joel Pomales, Passenger, Mike Richman, baconandcoconut, Dan Hirschman, Jeff Markel, John Chu, Aaron Marks, Mei Lin, tuoba denrael, Nullstring 🏴☠️, Oriel Jutty, Marta Threadbare, lobster 🦞, Hilary, Peter Krefting, Parsingphase, LeftOfKarlMarx, Ralf Demuth, Bai Shen, Altytwo Altryness, BS, Joachim, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, Lady of Mystery and Science, not ch1c, Just J, DRoach, Gatekeeper.., Diptansu, Jeffrey J. Dean, bookzombie, EmbraceBecoming, Nando161, FinalOverdrive, EineKleine, Valerie Aurora, NeonSnake, Quixoticgeek, Sophie OP, Josh Ourisman, ZenDra, Lars Wirzenius, Scott, taco, bird/cat, daniel (🌮), taco but lewd, Whaile and 168 other people reshared this.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@just adrienne @Rabbit Cohen And followed now!
This was from Facebook memories way back, and I like to when it fits, share those things over to the fediverse.
Adding an edit to explicitly credit because they deserve it.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@Scott Matter things like:
Judeo-Christian Potluck - A potluck hosted by both Jews and Christians
Judeo-Christian Househould - A family in which one parent is Jewish and the other is Christian
@Charlie Stross @Scott Matter antisemitism from ignorance is still antisemitism, it's accidental bigotry vs willful bigotry.
But also the EEE is a perfect reference point for what it's all about!
@A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Thanks for asking!
It's a messy topic and it's late here (I'm a bit sleepy), so feel free to ask follow up questions.
The short version of it is that Judeo-Christian is almost always used in one of two harmful ways:
1) To try and give more credibility and weight to something that is purely Christian by claiming that it's part of Judaism as well when it's not (like the above example, because Judaism explicitly permits abortions)
2) To try and talk about broader groupings of related faiths while ignoring the many other Abrahamic faiths (the proper term, though that one more often hurts the lesser known groups, don't use it unless you also know it applies to groups like the Baháʼí, which I'll admit even I know next to nothing about, but it's valid here because all I'm doing is naming their religious family)
Because many (cough most cough) teach a bastardized form of Judaism through the lens of Christianity, and because that's the only exposure many get to our faith... they get skewed harmful and hurtful ideas about us.
Some highlight examples:
* We don't have an established afterlife (we don't say there isn't one, we just have zero information on it if there is)
* We don't seek "eternal reward", the reward for our faith is being a better person than we were the day before
* We have forgiveness baked into our faith, and no it doesn't require animal sacrifice (it requires you to actually ask the person you wronged...)
* We thoroughly encourage arguing any topic with anyone (right time and place of course), and that includes picking a fight with God if you think they're wrong about something (you have a 99.9% chance of being wrong... but we commend the effort and every once in a while someone wins the argument)
* We have a rule, Pikuach Nefesh, roughly meaning that life is the highest commandment. Your well being takes precedence over your faith, if it would hurt you or others to be observant than you are exempt from that requirement. It's unacceptable to hurt others for your faith, and for yourself it's frowned upon
* We actively discourage conversion, it's allowed but it's not a trivial process. We don't want people to become Jews, we just want people to be better.
like this
Riot Disqordia likes this.
reshared this
ReimanSaara, Jeremy Mallin, tuoba denrael, -dsr- (hypoparenthetically), myrrhsterious, novatorine 🏴🏳️⚧️, NeonSnake, lucapette, PH1BE5, Katja, Mike Richman, Richard Brockie, PixelRobot, Caffeine Devil, Jonathan Beverley, Unacceptable selfie quality, packbat is a social construct, Psy Chuan, Deer Witch, Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated), Yingtai, fuchsiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Darth Osler, ಚಿರಾಗ್ 🌹✊🏾Ⓥ🌱🇵🇸 (he/him), Alex, luluberlu (recette originale), Myz Lilith, Bry is Just. So Gay, Neon Ghost Rat, Ox, lux 🦊ΘΔ, Flatbush Gardener 🌈, Cyber Trans Punk (It/They): The hidden arc, ✅Joe Stalin 1917 🇰🇵🇮🇷🇵🇸 🇨🇺🇨🇳, kcuf ho on ho --si temleh eht, noahnah, Rebecca Fielding-Miller, AnCuRuadh ΔΘ, SuckMaster Supreme IS ENGAGED!, Jay, fluffy 💜, Johannes Silverfox 🦊, Reinder Dijkhuis Does Art, kira :3, Nonny, BIDEN, JOE, TANGERINE FLAVOR, The Doctor, Exiled New Yorker - Connie, Catherine Berry, NatalyaD, Jamey Sharp, Jovan, Paul Chernoff, Sebastian Dröge 🍵, Larry Garfield, elegant etesian, Gina Peter Banyard, Writerphoebe, kuna, John P. and Chele reshared this.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
(A) when it's a person is a philosophical/religious argument, Judaism says at birth
(B) Pikuach Nefesh is specifically what permits it, abortion is permitted when it would cause harm to carry to term. It explicitly includes mental and economic health in that (if it would cause mental distress, if it would interfere with your ability to care for yourself or your family)
@A13cui :perl: :opensuse:
like this
Riot Disqordia likes this.
@𐪅𐪀𐪈 𐪑𐪁𐪉
Not remotely a counter argument. For one equating Israel with Judaism is an anti-semitic (blood and soil, or just thinking a regional government is authoritative of a worldwide culture) or Zionist take (despised by non-zionists like myself as they are colonizers who think Israel can do no wrong).
Also, it's in the blog section talking about America. It's also precisely the wrong usage (it's calling America Judeo-Christian... it's just christian if anything). On top of that, internalized bigotry is a thing in minority groups.
Sidenote: I understand why the combination would be complete trash in the topic of abortion. Anyone trying that might deserve a kick to the shin.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@M_U @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Judaism is both a religion and a cultural/"ethnic" group, "Judeo-Christian" is almost always used to refer to the religion of which my statements are representative of the vast vast majority of Judaism.
Also one of the distinct differences is that Atheism and the faith of Judaism are not incompatible. There are many atheist-jews because God actually isn't the center point of Judaism, the main point is the time tested rules (see the argue with everything/everyone) about becoming a better person.
We will always be used by minority groups referring to themselves, mostly because "the vast vast vast majority of us" is clumsy to say and people get the point that exceptions exist. Also, because it doesn't change the fact of the statement being made.
It's also why I mad the example points I did because they're central points that are agreed upon by all major sects as opposed to the many many points which are argued over (once again see the argue with everything/everyone... arguments are a past-time in Jewish culture)
The Doctor reshared this.
@A.L. Blacklyn @Scott Matter I think it's problematic because all of that is almost always presented from the filter of Christianity looking backwards. Jesus was absolutely a Jew and the vast vast majority of what he preached was in line with Jewish beliefs (if they hadn't shed Judaism as part of their faith and hadn't been co-assimilated with the entirety of Rome, it would be a very very different relationship).
The problem mostly comes from the fact that saying Judeo-Christian about those elements and times really should only be applied when you are intimately familiar with both faiths and are doing the hard work of removing the Christian filter from it.
Highlights on the Jewish view of Jesus:
* He fulfilled no significant prophecies regarding the Messiah (the whole point is the thousand years of peace), the vast vast majority of prophecies he's claimed to have fulfilled are mistranslations and/or completely out of context (ie. "virgin birth" came from "young woman of marriageable age" and a prophecy that had nothing to do with the messiah but was fulfilled in the following chapter)
* Trinitarianism isn't even universal among Christians, among Jews it's deeply deeply heretical as one of our long defining statements has been "God is One"
* Human sacrifice is abhorrent in Judaism, so the idea of Jesus being a sacrifice is abhorrent
* In Judaism we already have forgiveness, the biggest distinction is that God will only forgive how you've wronged God. For forgiveness over how you wronged another person you have to ask them. Imagine how you'd feel if I forgave my friend for stealing from you and then they looked you dead in the eye and said they were forgiven for stealing from you... I'd be an asshole, right?
@0x506978656C526F626F74🦾🤖 in probably 50% of the cases absolutely!
They often use it as a stand-in for Abrahamic (which is often problematic, but has far far more legitimate uses) and I mention in my elaboration comment, though I go more narrow a mention the most obscure Abrahamic faith I know of (Baháʼí) to highlight both facts just because their obscurity I feel makes the point better (though I feel a little guilty for using them as a token, it is also in the effort of getting them and other groups recognition).
@ScepticalScot1 Correct on Judaism, it's an explicit thing.
To be clear, our faith doesn't blanket allow it either... but it's a tiny distinction with how broad our allowance is:
We don't consider it a person until it's birth, until then it's just a potential person (Jewish law only treats it as a person in cases of forced abortion or similar, ie. if you murder a pregnant person who wanted their child, then it's a double-homicide).
Judaism specifically says that abortion is permitted when the well-being of the person carrying it is threatened. But that sounds far more restrictive than it is because we have a broad view of well-being laid out, which includes mental health (being forced to carry a pregnancy you do not want and birth a child against your will is traumatic, therefore abortion is permitted because your mental health would be threatened by denying an abortion... which basically means abortion is permitted in the vast vast vast majority of cases)
(An example of times when it might not be permitted would be things like if they were in the middle of a psychotic episode)
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 Oooooof, true but oooof.
I will forewarn against the usage there because many anti-theists (atheists with a grudge against all faiths) have picked up Judeo-Christian as well and would interpret that as accusing Judaism of also committing similar atrocities (though the government of Israel continually makes that a challenging topic...)
"Major Sects" - the large divisions of Judaism representing the vast vast majority of us
"Agreed upon" - Explicitly in our agreed mutual holy texts, considered major defining elements of our faith, or in the case of the afterlife not mentioned anywhere in our texts
Keep in mind that we have more religious texts than are included in the Christian "Old Testament", most significantly the Talmud which is accepted by all Jewish sects I know of and is where many of these elements are established.
How about this follow up: do you have more familiarity with Jewish cultures than a Jew? Do you know what I'm leaving off of the lists that differs between Jewish groups?
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@Tammy Garrison Here's a link to my previous elaboration: foggyminds.com/display/c6ef095…
Feel free to ask follow up questions!
@A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Thanks for asking!It's a messy topic and it's late here (I'm a bit sleepy), so feel free to ask follow up questions.
The short version of it is that Judeo-Christian is almost always used in one of two harmful ways:
1) To try and give more credibility and weight to something that is purely Christian by claiming that it's part of Judaism as well when it's not (like the above example, because Judaism explicitly permits abortions)
2) To try and talk about broader groupings of related faiths while ignoring the many other Abrahamic faiths (the proper term, though that one more often hurts the lesser known groups, don't use it unless you also know it applies to groups like the Baháʼí, which I'll admit even I know next to nothing about, but it's valid here because all I'm doing is naming their religious family)Because many (cough most cough) teach a bastardized form of Judaism through the lens of Christianity, and because that's the only exposure many get to our faith... they get skewed harmful and hurtful ideas about us.
Some highlight examples:
* We don't have an established afterlife (we don't say there isn't one, we just have zero information on it if there is)
* We don't seek "eternal reward", the reward for our faith is being a better person than we were the day before
* We have forgiveness baked into our faith, and no it doesn't require animal sacrifice (it requires you to actually ask the person you wronged...)
* We thoroughly encourage arguing any topic with anyone (right time and place of course), and that includes picking a fight with God if you think they're wrong about something (you have a 99.9% chance of being wrong... but we commend the effort and every once in a while someone wins the argument)
* We have a rule, Pikuach Nefesh, roughly meaning that life is the highest commandment. Your well being takes precedence over your faith, if it would hurt you or others to be observant than you are exempt from that requirement. It's unacceptable to hurt others for your faith, and for yourself it's frowned upon
* We actively discourage conversion, it's allowed but it's not a trivial process. We don't want people to become Jews, we just want people to be better.
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 I have no ability to delete your post without you being on my server, though I'm not seeing it anymore either. I'd check with your admins to see if they maybe flagged it and didn't understand?
And the exact kinds of people I mentioned in my comment are the people who'd not understand because they're indoctrinated by christo-fascism and rejecting it without rejecting what they've learned from it.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@Anthony Sorace @Erika Ensign that falls under "No True Scotsman", they are Christian regardless of being a subset much the same as I won't claim that Zionists aren't jews despite holding objectionable views.
It's a logical fallacy used very often to avoid looking at issues in one's own social groups.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
My Jewish Faith Makes Me Pro-abortion
Many of us working to protect access to abortion are doing so because of our faith, not in spite of it.Danya Ruttenberg (The Atlantic)
Shiri Bailem likes this.
like this
Shiri Bailem and Riot Disqordia like this.
@a13cui It often feels like the Jewish faith has things figured out better than most belief systems.
Especially the "don't try to force others to follow your religion" part. That's a big awesome one.
@e. hashman :flag_bisexual: Again I said major sects and didn't say there are no exceptions.
I'm not going to entertain this line of arguments any further because I can't see a version of this being in good faith at this point.
It's not really a tribute if it mostly gets used to mean Christian. It often implies the speaker doesn't understand or value the important differences between Jewish and Christian values. Also low-key islamaphobic
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@Zach Fine @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: it's purpose is to prevent dilution of the faith.
The rejection is just the first step, there's also studying and being approved by a Bet Din (rabbinic court).
We want to insure people don't join the community and the immediately start screwing with our traditions and practices.
@fluffy 💜 @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: It has slightly more legitimate usage, but only slightly.
Mostly just because it is the actual family name.
But yeah, it's too often used for faux-inclusivity.
@Robrab That's really a combination of anti-semitism and "No True Scotsman"
Most of the "old testament angry bits" are Christian interpretations or mistranslations.
Prime example is the verse they translate as "A man should not lie with another man as he would a woman" (anti-homosexuality) which is far more accurately translated as "A man should not lie with a boy as he would a woman" (anti-pedophilia). One of those two makes a hell of a lot more sense for stoning...
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Riot Disqordia likes this.
@CaptMorgan @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: This is a very flawed take and discounts the many interpretations and approaches different groups have to addressing these things.
For reference, I'm a Reform Jew: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in…
I will openly say that what you're saying absolutely applies to Orthodox Judaism and can somewhat apply to Conservative Judaism... there's a reason I'm a Reform Jew and not Orthodox lol
Also of note the "Old Testament" is not synonymous with all our texts or the Torah (the Torah is only the first five books). We have many texts that are not included in the Christian Bible.
@Zorin =^o.o^= @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Also noting that a lot of the "have things figured out" comes from the outlook of arguing as a pastime. Since nothing is above debate, everything gets challenged constantly.
These days, it's not as visible because the vast majority of topics have been challenged to the point that there's little to argue... but there are absolutely topics being fought over (like for instance circumcision which is a very very touchy ongoing argument, mostly due to it's adjacency to the history of antisemitism)
Marge吴静玫 likes this.
@Jared Forsyth wouldn't surprise me, a lot of terms get formed in a positive place and corrupted over time.
The broader term is Abrahamic Faith. It has more valid use cases, but does suffer from the same problem of people using it to talk just about Christianity.
As beloved author Charles Stross (The Laundry Files) commented above, it's the Embrace Extend Eradicate practice, applied to religion.
like this
Marge吴静玫 likes this.
@zachnfine @a13cui Which sums up pretty succinctly why Christianity is the way it is: It could really have done with some of that, instead of being so open and welcoming to all, that it is now very obviously the product of 2000 years of infiltration, appropriation, and bastardization, by every example of exactly the worst kind of self-serving people with power and privilege, Jesus warned about.
Thanks to that difference, try as they might to appropriate and bastardize Judaism - like they have so many other cultures - Christians have time and again, failed.
Where Christians go out of their way to eradicate basic critical thinking in those they indoctrinate, Judaism encourages it, and that provides a basic defense against the kind of corruption, that Christianity has utterly succumbed to.
'Those who have eyes shall see', and Jews see Christianity's leaders very clearly, for the wolves in sheep's clothing they always have been.
@Naomi @Zach Fine @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: So there's definitely some distinct history to what happened with Christianity.
It starts with the Apostles and namely with Luke arguing that Christians did not have to first be Jews. It's obvious why that argument won out (lower standards and dropping circumcision).
And then it was kicked into high-gear with Emperor Constantine who converted the whole Roman Empire to Christianity.
As an important bit of context, the Roman empire/faith was essentially the borg of religions. As it conquered cultures it declared that their faiths were all subsets of their own, assimilating them into their faith.
The issue between the Jews of Israel and Rome was rooted in the fact that Rome wanted to call our God just another manifestation of Zeus and we wholeheartedly rejected that (the story of Hannukah starts with the Romans trying to put up a statue of Zeus in front of the Temple).
So, when the emperor declared that Rome was now Christian, they immediately assimilated their own faith into Christianity. This is why the popular Christian afterlife mirrors the afterlife of the roman faith (seriously compare Heaven/Hell depictions with the Elysian Fields and Pits of Tartarus; and then contrast to the fact that Judaism has no established afterlife).
This is worth reading in full, but one point to take away is that in Judaism abortion is not merely permitted (in certain circumstances). It is obligatory/required (in certain, more limited, circumstances). If continuing a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, abortion is obligatory.
This is complicated by another halachic principle, which is the obligation to abide by the (secular) laws of the place where one lives.
There can be direct conflict here.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@a13cui This is great. I went to a catholic high school, and I remember contesting anything religious was a huge no-no. The word was the word, and arguing about it wasn't allowed.
Allowing even long-standing ideas to be challenged is one of the most important requirements for a society to progress.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: they are in fact Jews and you won't find me pulling a "No True Scotsman" on that.
I will however always note that they're Zionists and that non-Zionists don't approve of Zionists.
For a Christian example, it's the difference between saying WBC isn't Christian vs saying WBC is condemned by most other Christians.
Making the Palestine argument applies specifically to the Zionist take that Israel (the political entity) and Judaism are inseparable, and it implies from that that all Jews support the actions of Israel as opposed to the majority (at least as I've seen) condemning it.
@Zorin =^o.o^= @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Agreed, I'm a fan of Mark Twain's (yes, the Mark Twain) commentary on the topic:
He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?
We persist and have great impact because knowledge and understanding are cherished, and all things old and new are challenged constantly. We don't claim perfection, being Jewish is all about the act of continually striving to do and be better.
reshared this
Zorin =^o.o^= and Johannes Silverfox 🦊 reshared this.
@zachnfine @a13cui And this is why I'd much rather listen to Jews than Christians. You keep the parts of history that Christians have gone out of their way to bury, so your explanations actually make sense of the glaring disparities between what Jesus (a Jew) said, and what Christians, from the apostles onwards (Paul in particular), /say/ he said.
I mean, I can't even google anything related to the Bible, without getting endless pages of 'Good Christian Bible study' takes, twisting every word he said into its opposite.
Questioning that is why I got kicked out of Sunday school when I was still an infant, and it wasn't much longer before I realized Christianity was a very Roman creation, even with the poor, Christian education I was given.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: 80? that honestly is a lot lower than what I would have expected at this point
I won't say "bad Jews" because that's far too close to "No True Scotsman", they are Zionists and Zionism is Jewish Colonialism, which is a very bad take imo.
And no, you're not blocked. It wasn't a great take to start with, but it was understandable given the propensity for Christians to take the "No True Scotsman" fallacy against arguments such as that.
I believe in giving someone a chance first when there's any grey area on potential hate, plus it was a good excuse to outline the differences on a very common and hot topic that gentiles often know little about. And I think you learned something about Jewish society from it.
For more background, part of the problem with Zionists is that they're supported by White Supremacists and Nazis.
It sounds weird on the surface that Nazis would support Zionists, but it comes from a common White Supremacist principle of "Blood and Soil" in which they believe that different "races" have dominion over different lands (ie. white people over europe, Jews over Israel, Asians over Asia, etc). It's why you'll occasionally see someone spouting antisemitic bullshit, but then pivot to supporting Israel.
(Also "fun" trivia: this is why so many white people claim some vague distant "Cherokee Princess" in their background, it came from an effort to expand their blood and soil claim to the Americas)
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 I saw in your about you're from Germany and yeah, it's bad everywhere (the honeymoon post-holocaust period is ending and anti-semitism is returning to the "norm"), just from what I understand there's still drastically more taught about the Holocaust and Naziism in Germany than in the US.
Here, we get little more than "Nazis hate Jews", "Nazis bad", and "Bad things happened at Auschwitz". If anything else is covered, it's merely glossed over.
Of course, we're also the country that throws hissy fits at the idea of taking down monuments to people who actively fought to keep slavery (not that it's over with in the US, we just made it state slavery)
@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: praying for peace is a constant for us, but we also believe in Tikkun Olam, it's our responsibility to continually work toward it as well.
I figured you were not Christian, when mentioning Palestine you were calm about it and responded reasonably... Christians tend to only really go that route if they're going to be frothing antisemites, so it'd be really surprising to me if you were. (Not impossible, just unlikely)
Part of the trouble is that in the west Christianity overshadows all other religions to the point that many atheists only known and understand Christianity when they're rejecting religion as a whole. And that's something I'm deeply conscious of.
... I also love getting into arguments with anti-theists because they get so incredibly confused at (a) rational arguments and (b) the fact that I'll context switch right along them when they're not even paying attention to their context. (I jokingly call these people theo-phobes after the idea of homophobes being self-hating homosexuals and I believe many of them have an indoctrinated belief in god and are repulsed by the thought that the things they were taught would be true)
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 oof, for some reason I thought Germany was notable in taking them all down... but I really shouldn't be surprised.
I think it's both (a) and (b), after the war anti-semitism became shameful so it moved out of the public view... but also being out of the public limited it's spread.
But every year the holocaust gets more distant and the reaction to it becomes more and more muted as people try to claim that it's done and gone and not worth talking about anymore and with that Naziism becomes more and more a cartoon instead of a real threat... so of course it starts spreading again.
Wayne is distracted reshared this.
@Emily K 🪬 @Jared Forsyth Agreed, I cite it as better only because it's actually used in broader valid cases (as an accurate classification of the faiths), but whenever they talk about individual beliefs... it turns to total crap real fast.
Majority of the time they're talking about Christianity, every once in a while they hit a valid chord between the big three... but it's a miracle if it's actually accurate to all Abrahamic Faiths.
@Shaterri (he/him) Honestly I think this has been mostly good faith arguments given how people have responded to my replies. There's one where I drew the line feeling it was making it's way to bad faith pedantry... and the one worse than that you'll note their posts have disappeared or will soon because their server banned them (credit to Venera.social for responding quickly and decisively)
But I can see what people think of as bad faith. There's a lot of common anti-theist counter arguments that I'm familiar with, but I don't think any of them have gone beyond one post and in most cases took my reply graciously and learned something.
For instance calling out Palestine that one time, which while tiresome is understandable since Christians typically pull a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in response to things like that, which clearly marks them as not worth talking to. As tiresome as it is, it's a good barometer question for Jews imo.
@assertchris @Zach Fine @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: it's established well after that, that's prior to the Torah even being written and I believe it was established somewhere in the commentaries (like a millennia later) I think, but as I said no idea where.
It's not as hard to maintain your culture prior to being conquered by Rome and prior to Diaspora, but after it becomes vitally important to preserve your practices if you don't want them to dissolve into assimilation.
Not only did he use the term to promote anti-islamism by claiming they are NOT part of our tradition and shouldn't be, but he also seems to have 'forgotten' the nasty details of that 'judao-christian tradition'...
He definitely belongs in that 99%-bracket.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@More Cowbell @raf I had to sit on this one for a while, but... you know that arguing with Jews over what is antisemitic is itself antisemitic?
And do you really think bigots are saying "Oh yeah, I'm absolutely a proud bigot!"? And that if they actually believe their bigotry that somehow frees them of being a bigot?
Thank you so much to everyone who's shared this and asked questions!
From the comment section it seems to me a lot of people have learned some things about Judaism and how it differs from Christianity. We even exposed one raging antisemite troll who's been banned from their server (shoutout venera.social for having over a thousand users and taking care of it in around an hour).
There certainly was a lot of mild antisemitism throughout the comments, but as far as I can tell in most cases it was ignorance that has been relieved by this!
(Remember kids, pulling a "what about israel?" is rude to do out of nowhere, but if someone supports the occupation they're bad for being a Zionist and that still doesn't permit you to denigrate their faith because it's the same faith as those who reject the occupation)
reshared this
SCSalon, Left Field Farm and Jeff Cuscutis reshared this.
können wir Dinge wie eine Abtreibung auch ohne Religionsbezug betrachten?
Es ist ein Eingriff, welcher von Ärzten vorgenommern wird mit Zustimmung des Patienten.
Meiner Meinung nach hat Religion in dieser Entscheidung nichts zu suchen, egal welcher man angehört.
I do not get it.
can we look at things like abortion without reference to religion?
It is an intervention performed by doctors with the patient's consent.
In my opinion, religion has no place in this decision, no matter which one you belong to.
Agreed, but unfortunately it's often centered around Christianity and fascism, and both for and against throw around Judeo-Christian when talking about how it's being forced by religious groups.
Raroun likes this.
If people were more human and less religious, the problem would probably not exist.
I'm not religious and I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, except my opinion, unfortunately :)
@Raroun Critiques of religion and it's impact on people not of their faith (and sometimes of their faith) are valid!
A lot of the time I see the problem being that people's only experience is imperialistic religions (Christianity) and little experience with the variety of experiences and lessons.
Like for instance, in Judaism we couldn't care less if you worshiped our god, let alone any other god. Our primary focus is on the wellbeing of ourselves and our communities (which includes the non-jews). (We don't even care that much if other Jews worship our god, atheistic religious jews are an actual accepted thing!)
Where many Christians take the stance of "let Jesus into your heart and you will become a good person!", Judaism takes the stance of "You must do the right thing whether you like it or not, and if you keep doing it maybe you'll become a better person for it" (do the right thing being things like being charitable and kind as well as not tolerating bigotry even if it's not directed at you).
And most importantly in Judaism: if it can't stand up to scrutiny than it shouldn't be respected (ie. nothing is off limits to argue, and if it falters under argument then it has no right to be respected)
Feel free to ask me questions if you like about my experiences, I just ask that you content warning for others any questions that are potentially sensitive. I won't try to convert you (we have a tradition of rejecting potential converts), we just emphasize sharing knowledge and understanding as one of our primary goals.
I sincerely didn't know how drastically different Judaism was until years out from leaving fundamentalist Christianity, I was in a 4 year relationship with a Jewish woman.
There is so much outright bullshit about Judaism taught in those circles.
I still only know enough to know that there is a vast ocean of information I need to learn.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@JamieGC I mean, I think any honest rabbi will say the same thing? lol
It's a constant learning experience, especially for someone not raised in it.
And Christianity loves to paint such a horrific picture of Judaism and pretend it's an authority on the matter... and then people believe them.
🙂
I love how much Judaism is about learning, from what I have heard, and find it fascinating that debating more minor details is practically a friendly sport.
My life would have been so much better had I grew up in that kind of environment instead.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@undead enby of the apocalypse My pleasure, thank you for reading and taking it earnestly!
Feel free to ask me any questions you may have about this or Judaism in general! (I just ask you content warning for others any potentially sensitive topics)
@Don Hawkins - W7DAH fun fact, atheist observant Jews are a thing because Judaism is not dependent on belief in God.
Feel free to fire your arguments away, I enjoy debating antitheists. I'll even give you a courtesy and forewarning you: I will match the context of your arguments (ie. if your argument is from the assumption of my god existing, my response will follow that assumption; but if your argument is from the assumption that my god doesn't exist, I will respond likewise... a lot of people get confused because they don't pay attention to context switches)
@Don Hawkins - W7DAH Also, for arguing in favor of reason there seems to be an absence of it here? And a lot of assumption.
Your response is nonsense if your response to "atheist jews" is "there is no god"? So what?
Are you just trolling persecuted minorities because you think none of us will ever debate you? You think a handful of memes shitting on a post about antisemitism will make you appear enlightened?
“also”, I couldn’t care less what others might think. This appears in my profile:
“Better to write for yourself & have no public, than to write for the public & have no self." --Cyril Connolly
it’s called opinion & free speech
When did I call for government censorship of you?
why do you go to such great lengths to proselytize in a social media space?
Judaism does not proselytize, and the fact that you make that claim shows an ignorance of both the conversation and our faith. Our tradition is to reject converts by default, and when accepted we have an extensive vetting process. Accusing me of proselytization just exposes your ignorance of religion in general and makes you look like a tool who's only here to shit on people to make yourself feel better.
“also”, I couldn’t care less what others might think. This appears in my profile:“Better to write for yourself & have no public, than to write for the public & have no self." --Cyril Connolly
Well, if you're posting it publicly then you're on some level writing for the public, and even if you're writing for yourself you're getting something out of it and I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you get out of shitting on an oppressed minority talking about their oppression? My best guess is a sense of smug superiority in which you claim enlightenment, but what's so enlightened about attacking an oppressed minority asking to not be oppressed? Or misrepresenting an oppressed minority on a post asking people to stop misrepresenting us?
you seem triggered by one, short response; maybe social media isn’t for you. 😎
Ah yes, the "I'm being an asshole, but obviously better than you because I can throw around psych terms completely out of context to claim your inferiority and dismiss your responses". Triggered is referring to PTSD, do you think it's amusing to mock people with PTSD? Quite an enlightened take. I'm engaging a bigot because it's fun and presents a complete picture of their bigotry to others (especially to moderators). If I refuse to engage I get nothing, but by engaging I stand to protect vulnerable people from you and the likes of you.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
I feel there's a special evil in talking about germanies "judeo-christian" history (often done!), as uf that history wasnt mostly pogroms, exclusion, antisemitism, the shoa.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
@DemocritusDiscoBall ooh, such delightful words. I enjoy linguistics, so many fun quirks.
And isn't Intransigent Intelligence just all of us? It sounds to me like "Intelligence suffering from the backfire effect"
@More Cowbell @raf To quote Avenue Q: "Everyone is a little bit racist sometimes"
The defining question is whether it's rooted in ignorance or willful, which is part of this whole conversation with you.
You can be antisemitic without being willful about it, the question of character is how you respond when called on it. Telling us you know better than us about what is or isn't bigotry that we deal with is itself a form of bigotry.
The judgement of you as a person comes now, in how you respond to this?
If you learn and grow, addressing what we called out, then all the praise for you because that's hard to do. If you back away, well at least you were polite. If you become hostile, then we just write you off as a bigot.
And of course, further polite inquiries in good faith are valid too and fall under learning and growing.
@More Cowbell @raf There isn't a shared culture between Judaism and Christianity, they are very very distinctly different cultures and one has spent a very long time trying to kill the other.
Christianity is a member of the Abrahamic family of faiths and probably has more cultural similarity to Islam than it does Judaism, despite being an offshoot of Judaism. (And Abrahamic can be equally problematic if you're not well familiar with the cultural differences between Christianity and say Rastafarianism, but at least it's an accurate name for the relationship)
Much of the usage of "Judeo-Christian" comes from the belief that there's far more similarity than there is.
It's much like talking about the "Western Culture in which healthcare is a privilege, not a right" despite the fact that that's an american cultural element that's not shared by the vast majority of western nations.
@Ulrich_the_Elder 🇨🇦 🇺🇦 😷 Realized that my tone may not have come across in context, I genuinely want to know because that's a fascinating bit of trivia to have!
I otherwise agree, especially since in the Jewish Bible (parts not included in the Christian Bible) it is talked about, and explicitly permitted.
@M_U @e. hashman :flag_bisexual: I appreciate the apology.
Sects do have a cultural element because they are groupings based on shared beliefs and values.
Ethnic distinctions are a mess in general, especially when talking about ethno-religious groups like Judaism as someone can be of the ethnicity and not the faith, or of the faith group and not the ethnicity. In those cases though we'd typically differentiate by their specific groupings.
Most I know are Ashkenazi Jews, being the most represented group of Judaism in the west (for comparison, you also find Sephardic Jews as prominent in the west, but with drastically less representation).
Because of intersectionality, one can be a member of many many cultures at the same time and the definitions are going to depend on which topics and elements are being referenced. When talking about religious beliefs, a sect/denomination is more meaningful than a region. And there are some elements that are derived from those beliefs that make it applicable as well.
I won't pretend that a New York Jew is the same as a Florida Jew, as a Texas Jew, let alone a Polish Jew, Indian Jew, or Japanese Jew. Just that we're going to share a lot of the same cultural elements where they're rooted specifically in our faith, especially when in the same sects.
Also, fyi, "IQ" is mostly rooted in classism and racism. here's an entertaining video from the show Adam Ruins Everything talking about it: youtu.be/W3oUqKUx2o0
@M_U "smart" and "intelligent" are all vague, undefined terms that are pretty much always problematic.
We have a multitude of different cognitive abilities, and they're basically trying to say someone who's "smart" is cognitively superior... when they're often just well versed on a topic.
It also causes a lot of trauma for people like myself who go through life oscillating between being called "smart" or "stupid" depending on which cognitive abilities are factored into a task. (For instance, I have Executive Dysfunction, but also have pattern thinking and great pattern recognition)
@M_U to elaborate further, saying a particular group has "higher intelligence" in any fashion is still racist and falls under the "Model Minority" bigotry (used to pigeonhole people in those groups and leveraging one group against another).
Jews aren't "smarter", we just have a culture that encourages education, and very importantly critical thinking (our pastime of arguing everything, and nothing being above challenge means that we are encouraged to actually analyze topics rather than just memorize)
@wboucek @Scott Matter yeah, false inclusivity is a huge pain in my ass...
It's why now is the time of year for me to greet people with Happy Holidays and Season's Greetings!
@DemocritusDiscoBall Yeah, it's basically the backfire effect and whether or not the person takes effort to combat it. It has nothing to do with smarts and everything to do with pure psychology.
The backfire effect is rooted in the fact that when we take a stance on an issue it incorporates into our identity, the stronger the stance the more it incorporates.
When faced with evidence that the position may be wrong, we experience cognitive dissonance and our brain reacts to that information as a threat. Our natural default response is to double down on whatever it is, both increasing the strength of your connection to it and even less critical of the details you're relying on to support your argument.
It's basically the reason you "can't win arguments on the internet", because if someone is to the point of arguing about it, then they're invested enough that they'll be highly susceptible to the backfire effect. (Instead it's better to make your arguments for the sake of unconvinced bystanders)
It takes effort and mindfulness to push back against the backfire effect, and a conscious effort to allow yourself to be wrong.
@M_U ... okay, that's just straight up eugenics bullshit and will not be tolerated.
It's proven blatantly untrue, and is deeply disrespectful of our cultures. On top of that it's a purely racist talking point.
We have long established that we do not have significant mental or physical differences between "races", especially given that no one is "pure blooded", and especially going back thousands of years.
@M_U tendency towards sickle-cell anemia, tendency for cancer, tendency for blue eyes, tendency for baldness... sure.
No tendency for traits that don't exist (ie. "IQ"), no genetic tendency for education, or open-mindedness.
I've already reported you for racism and eugenics talk.
Maybe step back and look at your arguments vs the counter: that a culture that encourages challenging and arguing everything might be more conducive to understanding and challenging ideas in the world than a culture that emphasizes rote memorization and penalizes asking questions?
Do you assume that magically all groups of Judaism preserved genes for "superior intelligence" (despite being a non-sense idea rooted entirely in racism to begin with) despite varying every other genetic trait throughout? Or are you making assumptions about the genetic makeup of Jews worldwide, just assuming that all Jews are descended from Ashkenazi? Perhaps divine intervention? (I may be religious, but I'll take "easily provable" over "God did it")
@M_U I didn't report you for being antisocial, I reported you for racism. "Positive" stereotypes still cause harm and are still racist.
And I have no tolerance for for talk of eugenics, you are now blocked server wide regardless of whether your admins take action.
@heather gold Zionism, in it's current form is Jewish colonialism of the area of Israel/Palestine. It wasn't so bad initially when it was just a push for a Jewish state, but became awful between that state enacting colonialist policies against Palestine. Topped off by the fact that modern Zionists believe that the Israeli government represents the Jewish faith and not just the people of Israel. (ie. Zionists generally believe criticism of Israel to be antisemitic)
The occupation of Palestine is the fact that Israel has forced them out of more and more land, and keeps encroaching on their territory. There's a constant expansion effort by Israel that constantly disregards the impact on Palestine, and is more than happy to push Palestinians out of their homes then declare them the "bad guys" for fighting to keep their land and homes. (They often paint it as antisemitic attacks rather than attacking a nation that keeps trying to steal your home)
@miawgogo :KirbyVerified: it's because they believe Judaism is just Christianity minus Jesus.
Like, they think our beliefs are that you behave perfectly or go to hell because they see "judged by our acts" under their belief of "any sin = hell". (FYI, we do believe in being judged by our acts, but judged means judgement, it's not some automatic punishment thing but an actual decision... and on top of that, we don't believe in hell)
Non-Christians use it because many of them are convinced that all religions are basically Christianity with slight differences.
miawgogo :KirbyVerified: likes this.
@Shannon (she/her) @Pedestriansfirst I suppose you're technically correct, I guess I usually never think about it because there's always more apt descriptions (ie. Nazis are often Zionists because "Blood And Soil").
And yes on the antisemitism of it, I just chose not to say anything about that in favor of a chance at education. (Also a love for getting into arguments with aggressive militant atheists because it's so fun to see their talking points shatter and the confusion that comes from it)
And I didn't bring it up later because I felt from the conversation that it wasn't going to be a problem again from them because they learned some things about Judaism, Jewish Culture, and that religions people can in fact own and acknowledge bad behaviors in their own communities.
@Shannon (she/her) I don't think believing all zionists are jews isn't that messy of a idea because it impacts so little, especially since the zionist behavior of non-jews is already easily discernible on it's own as awful anyways.
And keep in mind that the comparison is that this started from assuming that all Jews condoned the atrocities committed by the Israeli government and has walked away knowing that it's not uniform.
This is a long article, but the theory hits *hard* with me and connects really well.
The basic gist is that autistics almost always define our identities by what we do and our personal traits, while non-autistics almost always define their identities by their relationships (in particular to social groups)
If you don't have it in you to read all of it, definitely read the section: "How does having an experientially-constructed identity impact relationships?".
neuroclastic.com/the-identity-…
The Identity Theory of Autism: How Autistic Identity Is Experienced Differently » NeuroClastic
Terra Vance posits that Autistic people experience empathy and emotions differently because the way autistic identity is structured differs from non-autistic people’s identity constructs.Terra Vance (NeuroClastic)
Mandi reshared this.
@bike I suspect it isn't that much different. Collectivist societies can be awful in their own ways.
They're still better imo, but they have a tendency to focus too hard on traditions and conformity on top of the ideals of communal responsibility.
But in all cases it's a mesh of peer pressure and group identity vs our value identity.
Why You Must Keep The Monsters Human
*(Reposting because my node crashed and lost all my posts and I want to keep this one pinned)*
I've been mulling over making this post for a little bit, but I think it's really **really** important.
It's critically important that you remember and acknowledge the humanity of monsters. Not for their benefit, but for *everyone else's* benefit.
When someone commits a monstrous act or shares a monstrous belief, we want to think of them as an inherently vile and non-human thing.
But doing so shields and protects other monsters.
When you make a Nazi, or any kind of abuser, into a one-dimensional monster. When you make their whole existence *center* on this monstrous act or belief... you make it hard to see their humanity. And that's the point, you don't *want* to see their humanity.
*** You Don't Want To Believe That Someone You Know And Trust (Maybe Even Love) Is Capable Of Such Atrocity. ***
And that's the problem. Because when you reject their humanity, that humanity becomes their shield. Your friend Bob can't possibly be a Nazi or a child-abuser, he's such a loving father and he helped you move!
Because you see their humanity, you can't possibly imagine them as monsters because the monsters have no humanity in your eyes.
There's a reason that when serial killers get caught their neighbors say they couldn't imagine them doing such things.
So don't ignore their humanity, keep it in your mind... so the next one can't use it as a shield.
like this
isuggestkillyourlocalrapist and em like this.
reshared this
evin, Zelda, pachulo, skrlet13, Seirdy, Helen Chong, Helen Chong, Lyrenhex and the esoteric programmer reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shiri Bailem • •For those familiar with dog training:
Your dog socializes with other dogs.
You socialize your dog to teach it how to behave in public.
One is something the dog does, the other is something you do to the dog.
Quixoticgeek reshared this.
Charlie Stross
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Charlie Stross • •@Charlie Stross enculturate might be more accurate in some ways, but it feels much less familiar which means it requires more explanation.
But I do think the lack of context is probably what's throwing people off, particularly in that they're so many steps removed from the definition.
"Socialized male" is basically shortened from "they socialized me male" (transitive verb form) vs people are confusing it with "I socialized with men" (intransitive verb form)
reshared this
Charlie Stross and Elyse M Grasso reshared this.
Charlie Stross
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
pixelbandito
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Charlie Stross reshared this.
Charlie Stross
in reply to pixelbandito • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Charlie Stross • •@Charlie Stross @pixelbandito I mean I think more people than can spell socialization correctly...
"Indoctrinate" is a pretty good word and pretty close, but I honestly think it's too dramatic and is way more active than what we're talking about.
"Socialization" in general is a process we all go through in which we're introduced to and steeped in our cultural norms and values. Not all of it is accepted, not all of it takes, but it all affects us. Like how as an american I was steeped in US propaganda far more intensely than someone in the UK.
The term is talking about how during socialization we were also immersed in the expectations of manhood and masculinity.
Isaac Freeman
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Tattie
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •in no context or meaning was I socialised male.
I accept that some trans women were. I accept that you may have been.
But I was treated closer to a girl than a boy, growing up.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Tattie • •@Tattie That's why I pointed out that it's non synonymous with assigned sex and is a perfect example!
Most trans women unfortunately are, at least in western society. Many if not most of us don't even realize we're trans until adulthood, so we grow up being treated as men by society.
For those like yourself who were treated otherwise, I'm grateful knowing that not all of us did.
This is in response to people who were interpreting "socialized male" as them socializing as men or primarily socializing with men, neither of which being the meaning of the term. If it meant that, it would be accurate to push back against it as we were never men and we very often socialize primarily with other women.
In it's accurate meaning, it's an important term and important to understand especially for cases like yours to define what makes your experience different. But also so that between our two experiences we can highlight what parts of our experience is inherent to being a trans woman and what parts are specific to being socialized male.
Tattie
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Tattie • •@Tattie I'm not grateful that it sounds like you were socialized female, tbh it kinda sucks for everyone all around.
But at least it sounds like you were socialized in a way that aligns with your identity.
Also I'm just generally grateful that it's not a uniform experience.
Tattie
in reply to Tattie • • •there was like this pattern where I'd go somewhere new and for like half an hour people would treat me as a boy, and it would be weird and confusing for everyone, and then there would be this "click point" and they'd switch to the way that everyone always treated me, as a strange boygirl creature.
I think maybe I went thru a phase of "male socialisation" for a few years during university? And it didn't bring me any more happiness than my childhood had. But then slowly I started hanging out with more and more woman-dominated friendship groups and being treated as an "honourary" one of them. And then I transitioned.
lp0 on fire
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •@shiri, this looks very much like “$ITEM is releasing on $DATE” vs. “$ITEM will be released on $DATE” to me. I'm quite sure that people just don't see or possibly even understand the difference.
I'm never quite sure why, exactly, $ITEM is holding on to $DATE, and I'm never quite sure what happens if $ITEM doesn't release $DATE – do we just skip that day?
Shiri Bailem
in reply to lp0 on fire • •@lp0 on fire ... that's the most confusing way I could imagine someone saying "I can't tell the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs"
merriam-webster.com/dictionary…
"socialize" in this context is definition 1 of the transitive form of the verb. People are confusing it with the definition of the intransitive form.
Or if you want to dive specifically into the word socialization itself: merriam-webster.com/dictionary…
They're confusing 1a with 1b.
lp0 on fire
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to lp0 on fire • •@lp0 on fire transitive/intransitive is not about the relationship to the subject.
Both "doing to" and "being done to" make a verb transitive. Which is the what you were showing.
Intransitive on the other hand is simply "doing" with explicitly no subject beyond the person doing it.
lp0 on fire
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?)
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?) • •@Juniper 🏳️⚧️ In regards to the transphobes, any term or phrase about our experience will get used in that way. Not because the term in any way implies it, but because they will bend over backwards to make that claim about us any way they can.
So I don't see any point in dancing around transphobes, all we get down that road is a semantic treadmill.
And yes, how we respond to it varies greatly. The term is unidirectional because it refers only to what was done to us, not how we responded to it.
We all have wildly different responses and experiences, same as anyone else.
The phrase is talking about how we were treated and what expectations were put on us by society.
And "Socialized Trans Female" is a step backwards because not all trans women dealt with male socialization, just the vast vast majority. (Example: a girl who transitions at a young age and is supported in her transition is socialized female)
This is an all too frustratingly common case of people complaining that a simplified phrase doesn't perfectly encompass a whole paragraph's of concept.
If we throw out this term we simply lose a tool to explain and describe our experiences, nothing gets improved.
If someone can come up with a better term to mean "Grew up with society/guardians treating you with the expectations it associates with <gender>" then we'll all hop on board.
Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?)
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •you are writing as though this phrase is commonly used by trans people in this sense. That has not been my experience. I have known far more trans people who actively reject the idea that they are socialized as their AGAB. Your experience may be different, but that is where I am coming from. And I don't think that this is dancing around transphobes; in my experience it is primarily used in a transphobic way, so that is the first way I expect it to be understood. My objection is not that the phrase is insufficiently descriptive, but that it is actively inaccurate.
I was not socialized male. Coming to understand that has been a significant part of my transition. I spent a long time with the self-conception that I was "not like other guys". Realizing that I am actually a pretty standard trans woman has been a trip. And I've also come to realize that I was not treated or even seen on the same way as the cis boys around me. I remember my mom saying once (not to me), after she had babysat her nephews for an afternoon, that now she understood what it was really like to have boys. This fits a pattern that was present throughout my childhood: people did not quite see me as a boy, even though they thought they should. And consequently, they didn't quite treat me as a boy, though they certainly didn't treat me as a girl.
I don't entirely understand your objection to using " trans female socialization". Certainly it is true that trans girls who have their gender recognized young will have a different experience of socialization than those who do not. But trans girls also have a significantly different experience of socialization than cis boys, and putting them into that box is more harmful than having a concept of trans female socialization that is not 100% universal. (No such concept will ever be completely universal. It will certainly differ along other axes like race, region, and socioeconomic status.) 1/2
Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?)
in reply to Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?) • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Juniper 🏳️⚧️🌲 (baking?) • •@Juniper 🏳️⚧️ ugh... socialization has absolutely no reference to how we respond to it.
This is an actual academic sociology/psych term and is entirely about the environment we were raised and the expectations we were raised with.
For instance, someone who grows up in a conservative household and community is socialized conservative, this is regardless of whether they ever accepted any of it.
If you're assigned male across the majority of your interactions growing up, that's what this means. It doesn't mean you are a man, it means you had to deal with the traumas of being treated as one.
And yes, this is something that's shared with cis boys, because it's not about how we responded to it.
Like I've said elsewhere, if we transition early and are accepted then we don't deal with it because we get socialization that matches our real identity.
Saying trans female socialization literally means that we were raised with the expectations that we would act and behave as other trans femmes.
I'm American, I was socialized hyper-capitalist... does that make me a capitalist? No. It means I dealt with the expectations and trauma of hyper-capitalist expectations being put on me.
What about being socialized Christian (which basically means growing up in a Christian, even non-practicing, home), does that make me not Jewish? Nope. Do I get "Christian Privilege" for it? Hell no. Does that mean people can call me Christian? Still no.
And we do end up with many of the traumas of cis boys/men, the difference is for us is that it's in stark relief as we move away from those expectations and re-socialize ourselves.
Socialization is explicitly the expectations that were put on us and not how we responded to them.
If you want to talk about socialization specifically in how we responded to it? It's failed socialization, they wanted us to be men and we rejected it, they failed. But failure doesn't mean we didn't deal with them trying, it just means it didn't take.