[ominous]

Their thread started with:

> Sounds like a great book.

A great book because "every character was some form of LGBT or interracial or something". If you think it was a conversation to start with, you are simply wrong. It's closer to the delusions of someone who hypnotized themselves into their current worldview.

It amuses me to engage in this way. I am very calm.

[TaylorAlexander]

> delusions of someone who hypnotized themselves into their current worldview.

I can understand what the other person is getting at. I literally just said I would like the book and my friends are actually like that, and you have to say I’m deluded? You’re not having this conversation in good faith. We are in fact having a conversation but you’ve imagined it’s something else and you’ve admitted from the outset you’re not taking me seriously.

When the person says “being this way” that’s what they’re talking about. You’re not treating me with basic respect. And to be honest I suspect the reason is that I’ve said I’m trans. Otherwise I can’t imagine why you decided I should be immediately dismissed.

EDIT: You know a major point you’ve tried to make is that I should be ashamed for wanting to hang out with trans people. But at the same time you’ve admitted that you’re not willing to treat me with basic respect. All you’ve done is concisely demonstrate why someone like me would want to hang out with people that get me. I don’t want to have to live my life constantly explaining myself to people who refuse to respect me on the basis for who I am. You’re exactly the kind of person I don’t want to associate with.

[ominous]

Commenting to correct just this:

> that I should be ashamed for wanting to hang out with trans people

I do not think that. Rather, I used it to point out how you placed all cis in one category, and refer to them as all the same.

> All you’ve done is concisely demonstrate why someone like me would want to hang out with people that get me

"people that get me" does not necessarily mean "non-cis". But you happily used it like that. Using "being trans" as proxy for being safe will get to talking with trans people who believe in gender roles, and will enforce a gender-roles status quo. That you likely do not like.

> And to be honest I suspect the reason is that I’ve said I’m trans. Otherwise I can’t imagine why you decided I should be immediately dismissed.

Had I dismissed you, I would not have engaged. It's not because you said you are trans. It's because you seem to act as if identity drives knowledge (positioning), and as if whites and cis were to be seen as purely elements of the oppressor class that when coming together are only doing so to exclude the oppressed and perpetuate the status quo.

I said nothing re: you. Rather, your worldview. You feel attacked. I understand.

[boyanlevchev]

Offering a rebuttal, and then backing it up with a personal experience is a perfectly normal form of conversation.

It is fine to amuse yourself with your speech, but it is worth recognising that it sounds like you are hosting a nature documentary about dumb animals, that exist beneath your own intelligence.

To think this person is deluded, but that you have saved yourself from the delusion all humans go through, is deluded.

> I do not view it. It is. (Speaking on moving from isolation to acceptance as an act of exclusion and chauvinism)

“It is” not. Perhaps it could be, alongside many other things - included in which are the benefits of doing so, such as acceptance, and internal peace. I implore you to go to any community around the world and try to fit in - chances are you won’t. You will then blame that community for not accepting you - or you will otherwise try to change yourself and only ever delude yourself that you are not just imitating them. It’s not racism, or anti-cisgenderism, to feel that you are not accepted where you are.

Maybe OP shouldn’t blanket talk about cis people - I understand your point. But my question is - do you only pick this fight with oppressed people? You yourself insinuate, in blanket fashion, “We have tried to get away from ‘oppression’ by giving the ‘oppressed’ the right to act out their chauvinism in public.”

Your words (and perhaps you, yourself) are very cynical. And it’s worth noting cynicism is a view on the world, not the world itself…

[ominous]

> do you only pick this fight with oppressed people?

Ah, a request that I also punch up... I do punch up as well. Do you require a balance of punches for this specific round?

> To think this person is deluded, but that you have saved yourself from the delusion all humans go through, is deluded.

It is, but I didn't claim that. Rather, I have my delusions, but not this one: framing society (western, J assume? but isn't that self-centered to assume western? this is an international forum) as a cisheteropatriarchal normative society, and from that segmenting people into oppressed and oppressor as defined by intersectional characteristics, and from that to reach into the oppressor group, pick their elements, and accuse them of perpetuating the status quo, and so remove from them the agency of existing as a group and having a voice other than to help the oppressed.

Do you see people like this? In particular, when observing that a book has only characters of the oppressed type and so it must be great?

[jna_sh]

I would humbly suggest that you shouldn't be unpleasant to people because it amuses you.