this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
186 points (93.9% liked)

Asklemmy

44839 readers
1093 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

elon musk, mark zuckerberg, J.K rowling! Are the names that come to mind.

3 from different background: a African immigrant benefiting from government spending, an American smart young engineer, and a female English successful writer.

They are no politicians, and cant be accuse of trying to gather some vote. Multi-billions amongst them.

I get they lean to the right to protect their cash, with less tax and regulation. I get they are racist because they fear some poor people will take their cash.

But why the hatred for trans people ? It's 1% of the population, they cant do anything, dont threaten anyone. There is no rational or psychological reason

*EDIT: I read all the comments. A lot of interesting explanation: smokescreen/scapegoat, maintaining the male/female power structure, new face of anti-gay , projection / self-hatred , just louder voice ...

I realize, may be, I didn't post a good question. May be it is less about the ultra-rich but more about why that rhetoric work on the general population (else it would not have taken hold as it does). For that I have a 2 cent theory: The raise of the cult of Nature we have since the global warming. The idea, that everything natural is better. The ugly version is only natural male and female are worthy*

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] prototype_g2@lemmy.ml 14 points 10 hours ago

It is a useful distraction from the surplus value extraction from the proletariat to the bourgeoisie.

The Bourgeoisie hire workers and pay them for their work. But with what money? The money made by selling a product or service. But who did the work to create said product or service? The workers did. So workers do work, which makes money for the company. But do the workers receive all of it? After all, they did all the work. But no, no they don't. If the Bourgeoisie gave all the money the workers to back to the workers, them how could the Bourgeoisie make a profit? It thereby must follow that the Bourgeoisie pay their workers less than the value they produce, thereby stealing that money from the workers.

You might say "but the bourgeoisie own the company! And they also do some work themselves! Some people's work just contributes more than others." Yeah, yeah, but who gets to decide how much of the pie each person gets? How much should be reinvested and what not? Who gets to decide what is done with the money made? The Bourgeoisie! But why them? Why do the workers not have a say in how the money they made is used? Because the Bourgeoisie had enough money to buy the means necessary to make money (the factories, infrastructure or whatever) and the workers did not. How did the Bourgeoisie get all that money you ask? By stealing worker's wages.


What does this have to do with trans people?

  1. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

This whole anti-trans thing is a useful distraction. Bad people will believe it's those dam trans people's fault their country is shit and not investigate any further. Good people will be distracted arguing against the bad people on why being trans isn't evil, all the while the real culprits laugh as we fight each other.

Remember: Desperate people make great workers and distracted citizens. Keep people busy with basic necessities and they won't have time or energy to realize who is really exploiting them.

  1. It makes trans folk more exploitable

Racism a misogyny is useful for the Bourgeoisie as it allows them to pay lower wages. The bourgeoisie want to pay their workers a little as possible. Desperate jobless people are more willing to take a bad deal because any job is better than homelessness. That means the more desperate people there are, the lower the wages they can pay, as they can replace workers who demand a higher wage with workers from this reserve.

Racism keeps people of color in poverty allowing them to be more easily exploited. Misogyny justifies paying women half the wage of a man, which is exactly what the Bourgeoisie want.

Likewise, if trans folk are illegalized that will make it hard for them to find a job, adding even more people to the reverse army of labour.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 20 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They keep you fighting a culture war so you don't fight a class war.

[–] f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4@sopuli.xyz 3 points 7 hours ago

The US right-wing was constantly bitching about "cancel culture" and now that they are in power they are cancelling everything they can.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

they're the newest scapegoat, the bourgeoisie always need a scapegoat to redirect the other classes grievances to them.

I always thought it was about power. Maintaining power structures requires a clear dividing line, somewhere. The line between women and men is artificially upheld, to create the illusion that there's "naturally two categories in everything". If people got the idea that you could "transition", that would overthrow a whole lot of the artificial divides that we have in our society today.

[–] Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 16 hours ago

Its a thing of domination and power. If there are less people with human rights, you can exercise your power more without restrictions.

first the trans, then the gays, then the "other races", then the women, then the poor. and boom, only the elite have rights.

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago
  1. They're a scapegoat
  2. People fear what they don't understand. If they actually went out and talked to trans people they may realize they're normal people just like anyone else.
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Its alla diversion.

Find some group that is different, then shit on them and make them look bad publicly while this relatively small group can't so much to talk back publicly.

It'll outrage the public, they'll start looking at the group while trump and Co then go and rob the state blind while no one is looking

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 6 points 1 day ago

Yep.

To add to that, I've found a lot of people in the working class care a lot about class differentiators and will spend a lot of time trying to profess how they should be viewed at a higher relative ranking since they can't rely on money or heritage to do it for them.

So, if you create an out group for them, a lot of them will latch on to that idea since it raises their relative value in a meaningful way.

Just the latest social group that's still broadly acceptable to shit on.

There's not a ton of global census data out there, but in Canada trans and non-binary people make up 0.33% of the population. Which means there's a lot of people who don't know anyone who is trans or non-binary. Unfortunately there's also a lot of people who are unwilling to emphasize, or even sympathize, for those they feel are different or strange to them. It take time and effort to listen to others' stories and to gain appreciation for their perspective, and it's an effort many people are uncomfortable making if it feels they are deviating too far from society's norm. What you're observing is those in power taking advantage of the same human weakness that's been used forever to discriminate on whoever the current permissible outgroup to hate is.

How many times have you heard, "I don't care about anyone being/doing Y, but...", and then proceed to say some sort of transphobic, homophobic, racist, or sexist shit? When I grew up it was the G in LGBT. When my parents grew up it was African Americans. Women only got the right to vote a century ago, you better believe some of our great granduncles had some shit to say that would make today's uncles look like saints.

[–] purplemeowanon@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago

A useful distraction to prevent class warfare and protect their wealth with a convenient and reliable scapegoat designed to ensure a divided working class.

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago

Divide and conquer. A united population is harder to subjugate.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 33 points 1 day ago (5 children)

It's called smokescreen. Turns the attention of the masses away of their wealth and power

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 65 points 1 day ago (4 children)

All threaten the oldest hierarchy of all: man over woman.

As for musk, he has a trans child he hates and disowned. And he’s a Nazi, straight up. Family left Canada to go to apartheid South Africa because they agreed with apartheid and white racial supremacy. See the hierarchy here?

Zuck is an opportunist who will align with anything that makes him money. But he also has a weird obsession with Roman history that’s a red flag to me about being a closet fascist.

Jk Rowling is a second wave feminist and she’s big mad that people without vaginas can call themselves women and be in women’s spaces.

[–] Alice@beehaw.org 15 points 1 day ago

All threaten the oldest hierarchy of all: man over woman.

Pretty much this. I remember being a teenager and hearing the most basic watered-down gender theory and being really confused and upset. Even back then I knew it was because, for it to be true, it meant a lot of things I take for granted about society were actually totally irrelevant. Unfortunately some people don't ever have to confront their cognitive dissonance, they just use their money and power to enforce the status quo they're used to.

Jk Rowling is a second wave feminist and she’s big mad that people without vaginas can call themselves women and be in women’s spaces.

Unfortunately you could have the best neo-vagina money could buy and terfs would still find an excuse to exclude you. It's not truly about genitalia, it's about being trans.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Robin@lemmy.world 104 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can't get ultra-rich while being a compassionate person

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

This, and all the more nowadays, because anything progressive has been intrinsically linked to a change of the Status Quo. And those trillions of fun bucks in the mattress (as well as their self-importance and self-perceived relevance) must be protected from those pesky Socialists!

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago

Because it's nothing more than a trick to divide public opinion and control it.

[–] golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They will pick whatever group they think will suddenly put as many idiots as possible under their control when they say "GROUP A IS BAD".

Most of them don't care they are trans, they only care that they can take advantage of the oppression of a minority group in order to consolidate control over people so that they can oppress more people.

When everyone alive and dead is either oppressed or under your control, you become god. This is the goal, but they don't care about the process to get there.

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 81 points 1 day ago

preface: conjecture

musk and zuckerberg benefit from “othering” a group so that the majority of people get caught up in arguing about the rights of that group. While you’re busy being distracted by that they can push for agendas that benefit their companies and personal wealth, which inherently fuck you over.

musk does seem to have a personal vendetta as well given his issues with his trans daughter but I truly think this is ancillary to enriching his wealth and power. He also seems to love getting involved in topics that rile people up because deep down he’s a 14 year old reddit troll

rowling is double down and attention. She has a shit take, posts about it, people call her out. She’s a literal billionaire “beloved author” used to being surrounded by hangers on so being challenged wrecks her shit. Rather than reflect and look at scientific consensus she doubles down on her shit take. Because of people like above this gets her increasing amounts of attention and relevance so her beliefs are reaffirmed and deepened constantly. Now she’s consulted to speak authoritatively on the matter despite having no actual qualification other than being a rich lady who got into twitter arguments about it

Many of these apply to nobodies as well. Your stupid anti trans neighbor benefits from “othering” someone because it gives them someone to deflect blame onto. For most of American history it was black people, or Hispanic people, sometimes Jews, basically any minority. They also will double down when called out on shit takes and will absolutely respond to attention given for shit takes.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 45 points 1 day ago

They are frequently interviewed.

Which means they are frequently asked: “Why’s everything fucked up?”

They can’t give the real answer, which is “ultra-rich people”.

So they give no answer at all (in which case you don’t hear about it) or they cite the Enemy Of The Day.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago

There must always be an "underclass" in capitalism for the upper echelons to threaten the middle echelons. No exceptions. Wether that's the homeless, psychiatric patients, gay or trans people... doesn't matter. There will be some regional differences in what constitutes this underclass but the end result is always the same. Capitalism CANNOT FUNCTION without this implicit threat of excommunication and starvation.

The only real difference with the recent past is that all of this has become much, much more explicit than it ever used to be before. But make no mistake, even with a Biden or Harris at the helm, this would still be the case, just much more muted.

This is a feature of the system, not a flaw, and will never change as long as capitalism in its current form dominates.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

As far as I can tell, they didn't. J.K is a straight example, but Elon went looking for an edgy movement to align with, and Zuckerberg just wants to stay rich.

Your everyday regressives want to go after trans people because they don't think they can take gay people on anymore. Some political movements have capitaised on this to gain their support, and have captured rich supporters as well because trans abuse is compatible with the rich continuing to gain more and more power.

How rich are the Wichowski sisters? You bet they're not a fan of any of this.

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Actually it's because Elon thinks the "woke left" took his child away from him. Even though he was an absent father who was never around. He has a trans daughter who he refers to as his son because he's a sack of shit.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 day ago

They saw /egg_irl and blame them for why eggs are now expensive.

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It is easy for many people to think trans wars is a distraction, scapegoating, or a genuine threat to the authoritarian world view. I ask you to carefully consider that anti-trans hate is genuine.

Nazis had prioritized Jewish genocide and pursued it to an irrational degree, even prioritized the genocide to actually winning the war. Some analysts say that this shows their war was always and primarily against civilian Jews.

We have evidence to think this is the case with trans people now.

The recent "anti-christian bias" order outright frames trans rights as an enemy of their ingroup.

Reed has covered the leaked Christian emails that show them believe trans people are demons and evil incarnation and want to wipe them from the face of the earth.

Rowling has been caught on tape saying she wants to minimize the number of people transitioning so that they have less work to do "special accommodations later" for trans people.

For those aware of the term Sonderbehandlung this leaves no doubt: trans people are their primary enemy, they have poured their millions into the pockets of nutjobs and politicians that will relieve them from having to live side by side with trans people.

Don't be fooled that this is just distraction and/or scapegoating by power-mongers.

They have a trans Holocaust in the making and they have already put the plot in motion. ACT NOW

Edit:

I realize I might have not responded directly to OP's question. See the following for my take.

My analysis linking Bathroom Bans as early signs of completely banning trans people out of public life https://lemmy.ml/post/25037664

I wrote this while still believing that anti-trans hate was an election-winning distraction. It partly responds to where anti-trans hate comes from https://lemmy.ml/post/24711061

In this sense many people are deeply transphobic, but billionaires have the resources to eradicate trans people from public life. The rest can only curse, badmouth, trash, verbally attack, workplace harass, fire, refuse healthcare, sexually or physically attack or mob-lynch trans people. Every transphobe does as much as they can get away with. Billionaire transphobes can get away with genocide so they're doing that.

Additional resources in support of the argument

Summary of early Holocaust course of events and why targeted people were not mobilized https://lemmy.ml/post/25008729/16208799

Erin Reed article on fundamentalist anti-trans lobbyists' leaked emails https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/2600-leaked-anti-trans-lobbyist-emails

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Yggnar@lemmy.world -1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

So there is definitely more to it as plenty of people have already explained, but when it comes to Elon and Rowling they both have personal reasons for their anti-trans beliefs. Rowling was sexually assaulted, and now finds the idea of, in her words, "men pretending to be women" utterly terrifying due to her PTSD, and is seemingly incapable of seeing trans women any other way.

Elon on the other hand went through a bunch of drama bs with his family, he's got at least one trans kid who has disowned him, and he spiralled out from there, eventually finding a place among the far-right Nazis who have only reinforced his preconceptions about trans people and trans kids.

No idea what the fuck Zuck's trans villain origin story is though.

[–] DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Easy to scapegoat like most minorities that a large part of the population has never interacted with before.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Poor, trans, minorities, leftists, educated, and even moderate Republicans are all under attack. These billionaires participate so they can be part of the fascist takeover of this country, not through any personal conviction.

[–] DinosaurThussy@hexbear.net 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The reasons generally start out personal and become generalized as a political “position”, which really consumes your life after a while.

Rowling has said that she had a queer “phase” and that if she were going through that nowadays, she would likely have ended up considering herself trans (incorrectly, by her assertion). That reads to me as some internalized bigotry that she never worked through. Musk has a daughter who’s a trans woman and disowned him for being a piece of shit. He started posting about “pronouns” soon after. And Zuckerberg seems to have seen the way the winds are blowing with the current administration and jumped on the anti-trans bandwagon because he’s a lizard man with no soul (metaphorically, not in the David Icke antisemitic way). These are all guesses, but not based on nothing.

It ends up being socially unacceptable to say, “trans people remind me of my estranged daughter so I don’t like them,” and rightly so. So you have to retreat and bury the context, taking it up as a matter of principle. And your mind can backfill the justification over and over again, further cementing the ideas as people start to ask you to talk about trans people over and over again. After all, you’re a public figure who doesn’t like trans people. That’s a hot topic. People on Twitter want to talk about it. Reporters want to talk about it. So it snowballs from there. Transphobia can absolutely take over the life of a public figure.

Philosophy Tube has an excellent video on something called phantasms and how people get stuck in irrational worldviews. Would recommend.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] manicdave 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They want you fighting a culture war to keep your mind off the class war.

The mainstream "left", such as the Democrats benefit from this too.

Draw the national party lines between bigoted and non-bigoted. Now everyone can fight over that and nobody has to address the fact that two thirds of the country want universal healthcare.

[–] Outdoor_Catgirl@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A lot of them genuinely hate us. Don't discount that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

Divide and conquer.

[–] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

trans people are a threat to the status quo of the patriarchal-capitalist Gender regime. the ideology of patriarchal capitalism is that your gender assigned at birth is immutable and there are only two. in patriarchal capitalism your gender defines a lot of what path your life will take, the societal expectations placed on you, and importantly what opportunities and privileges are afforded to you. obviously the setup is men dominating and oppressing women which has been going on for far longer than capitalism but worsened significantly under it. the division of reproductive labour is the social basis of gender. according to traditional gender roles, women are expected to act as broodmares to reproduce more worker stock and also perform most or all domestic labour in essentially a slave role. the existence of trans and trans nonbinary people disproves the two axioms on which this all rests, that your gender is immutable and one of just two. gender in capitalist ideology is little more than a tool or system of oppression, and by existing and living our lives as we see fit and not railroaded by traditional expectations based on assigned gender at birth, we show clearly that it doesn't have to be that way. so to answer your question they come for us because we are a genuine threat to capitalist patriarchal orthodoxy, we show by our actions and existence that a better social order is possible, one where individuals are actually afforded self-determination instead of being locked into a predetermined role based on what genitalia you are born with.

sorry it's kinda an incoherent thought dump, there is plenty more to say this is just a quickie of the root superstructural reasons that we are perceived as a threat to patriarchal capitalism. of course, most transphobes won't have these specific reasons in mind (in fact probably couldn't comprehend them at all due to ignorance) and have just been convinced by capitalist propaganda and transphobic media to hate us because we are icky etc. the prevalence of misogyny also is why it's so easy to get people to be transphobic, a lot of it just boils down to either "hah! why would a man want to be a woman?", or "hah! a woman could never be a man".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 27 points 1 day ago

My personal opinion is twofold:

  1. they need a diversion. Like a magician (or more accurate a pickpocket) they will take anything to make people blind while they amass their power. It is a sickness of the mind. They are addicted to power and ever anxious to loose it. Minorities are a good enemy for the people to blame the problems on that these people either cause themselves or dont want to take care of. In the past it was witches, nowadays it is other minorities.
  2. minorities have been fighting for a place in the world for a long time and there have been significant improvements. But that is not a positive development if you want to rule supreme. If you‘re power crazed, you need people to fall in line. Otherwise it wont work. We have ample evidence that only a sufficiently subdued population will not rise up against authority.
load more comments
view more: next ›