Quote Originally Posted by Michelle.M View Post
...
You don’t have to be here very long to see the common use of absolutes presented as reality. I’ve been here a few years and over that time I’ve seen one generalization after another espoused on this site, and every time with near prophetic authority. Here are just a few of the hits we all love -

“You can’t possibly know your gender identity until you begin RLE.”

“There’s something wrong with a man who wants to date a trans woman.” (usually referring to pre-op, but occasionally applied to ANY trans woman)

“There’s something wrong with a trans woman who wants to date men.”

“There’s something wrong with a trans woman who wants to date.”

And about our bodies (including this passability thing, which we needn’t revisit at this moment) -

“There’s something wrong with anyone who wants FFS (or BA or any type of improvement not earned by hormones alone).”

“Your gender transition is not valid unless (or until) you undergo GRS.” and related to “If you don’t want GRS, then you’re not really trans.”

And my all-time favorite -

“You pre-op girls simply have no clue as to what transition is all about. Transition doesn’t REALLY begin until after GRS.”

What a toxic line of BS that is!

You know what these statements all have in common?

They have all been promoted on this site, some more often than others.

They’re all true - for someone. But they are treated as if they are true for everyone.

They are all STATEMENTS and not opinions. They’d be much more useful if they began ...
it's a good list and it illustrates your point well. I think it's too bad that people can't see generalities for what they are, though, and to keep them in proper context. Attacking a generality is a debating technique that's vastly overused. The poorest use of all is to simply use it as a trigger to discuss exceptions. There are always exceptions to generalities. The only thing accomplished is sidetracking the discussion into rhetoric. (Definitions anyone?)

Your point is, of course, that many of the statements you cite are not meant as generalities. To that I say sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are versions of even your favorite, for instance, that I can accept - minimally as a hypothetical. The wording with this one often hangs people up. I reject the notion outright that transition itself begins after SRS, for example. But I don't believe that is what is meant. I think the usual meaning is that there are aspects of transition which are not invoked until SRS. As a fundamental theme of the entire exercise is congruence, it is not a stretch for me to believe that there might be something psychological going on here. So someone makes a statement like that… What shall I do? Protest the language? Beg the exception? What (and whose) interest is being served by this? If the generality is true (i.e., as a generality), the largest portion of the readership is best served leaving it as it is. And perhaps everyone would be better served by taking the few exceptions off-line, as it is the discussion of exceptions that is splitting hairs, not additional commentary on the generality itself.

Naturally, when the context is insufficient to clarify intent, all bets are off. If someone wants to make a generalized statement about men who like to date pre-op trans women and the context is fetishists and the risk of being dropped like a stone, the generalization gets no argument from me. The discussion about online dating sites is often about precisely this. Someone who issues the generalization in response to an innocent dating question out of nowhere is perhaps being preachy.

I find I have to over-caveat my writing here. There are too many hypersensitivities. They are not one-sided.