40516 Everyone Is Awesome

[Lord Insanity]

 

1 hour ago, Fuppylodders said:

You mention brain wiring. I totally get that, and entirely agree. But brain wiring works in more ways than just regarding gender. It works in everything we do. Everything we believe in, the way we account for ourselves. It provides the strength behind our own individual ideologies. It provides our different levels of stubborn-ness. It provides us with individuality, some who's resolve is greater than others. It provides each individual with different levels of ability to *adjust, adapt, view objectively*. Some benefit from greater levels of it while others have minimal levels of it, if any. 

Just as you can't change your mind on your gender, I can't just 'change my mind' on something that has been a lifelong thought process that my mind has reasoned as 'the way life is because it's what society has dictated', accepted and, due to *society* has had impressed upon me when young and impressionable and at my most important stage of learning and adapting. 
Which makes it extremely difficult to suddenly change just because others are telling me it's not right, when it contradicts my entire upbringing. I'm old enough and have enough brain cells (sometimes!) to understand and accept LGBT+ have absolutely *every* right to be treated equally. The issue is, society has provided me with an upbringing that doesn't make it as straight forward as that. Might I add, absolutely everyone has had a very different upbringing, and therefore, has different experiences, which has provided differences in many aspects of our lives. So, to say you find it horrific if someone wanted to change someone's brain wiring... well, welcome to our world, where we're being forced to have our brain wiring changed at a late stage in our lives when we're already typically set in our ways in mind, and thought process and having to change what quintessentially, now comes natural to us.

@allanp too.  Sorry I was not explaining this more clearly.  I put "brain wiring" in quotes to emphasize the imprecise nature of the term.  In context of my original post on the subject I was referring to embryological development of specific "brain wiring" differences.  (That is not something that can be changed later.)  I also mistakenly assumed it was clear in context that "male" and "female" "brain wiring" was more of a spectrum of subtle gradation rather than a hard "this is male" "this is female".  Humans are not separate from life on earth, we are very much a part of the biology shared by the rest of planet.  Biology is a total mess.  Individual humans can have multiple different "brain wiring" "areas" from multiple different spots on the "male to female" difference spectrum.  There are however very specific testable and measurable areas of the brain with differences that tend toward specific genders.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/

[Aanchir]

On 5/24/2021 at 11:47 PM, Alexandrina said:

I'm not saying it would be poor representation on its own per se. The issue would be more that alternative representation is harder to pull off visually without the use of symbology cues (that was the original point I was making on the first comment). If the entirety of trans representation was restricted to typically male facial features paired with typically female clothing and hair, it paints a picture that leaves an unbalanced view of trans women. My gut instinct based on my time in the community is that trans women who regularly present with facial hair as a conscious aspect of their presentation (rather than those who are struggling to remove it and thus have visible stubble, especially at the end of a long day) are a minority - I could be wrong here, I've never done a full survey. Again, as part of a balanced representation it would be fine - but the crux of the matter is that it's harder to show trans women without obvious facial hair.

I think you're right that there are not many unambiguous, undeniable ways of representing a person being trans other than symbolism and/or narrative elements. But at the same time, I think there is also legitimate value in creating transgender characters even if on a visual level, any hints at their gender identity are subtle enough that they'd seem ambiguous or "open to interpretation". — particularly if there is ALSO narrative material or symbolism which helps to clear up that ambiguity.

Believe me, I would be just as uncomfortable as you are if LEGO (or any toy/media brand) simply portrayed trans women like me as "women, but with facial hair". Because not only does that tend to evoke harmful stereotypes and caricatures of trans women as "men in dresses", but it also simply isn't a way I would want to see myself portrayed on a personal level. But in all honesty, I don't know why that would even need to enter into the conversation.

 

For my part, I would not be at all unhappy if LEGO introduced characters with just enough ambiguous elements to their design to tell us that they MIGHT be trans, such as female minifigures with less pronounced curves or more pronounced facial lines than is typical of other female minifigures their age. In non-narrative-driven themes like Creator, that level of ambiguity would probably be plenty —  enough non-normative design cues to ensure that transgender and cisgender fans who relate to those non-normative elements of the design feel seen and represented, but also FEW enough to avoid playing into the transphobic stereotype that there are categorical, unmistakable visual differences between transgender and cisgender women.

More narrative-driven themes like Friends or Ninjago could then take additional steps to reinforce it in other aspects of their characterization — for instance, references to their past before "coming out" (including the character not being entirely comfortable talking about or sharing details with that part of their lives except with people they're close to), misgivings about going out in public alone, fears of being misgendered by strangers, preferences for less revealing styles of clothing and swimsuits, strong emotional connections to LGBTQ+ peers or role models, an interest in in-universe works of fiction with queer subtext, etc. A lot of subtle hints can go a long way to helping people feel seen, especially when you're in a demographic where even subtle hints like those are a much clearer reflection of your experiences than you're accustomed to seeing!

 

If it helps, think also about the portrayal of the black-haired family in the Fun Fair People Pack. All three of them have black, tightly coiled hair and black eyebrows. The daughter has braids, the father has neatly groomed stubble, and the mother has clearly defined lips and a wide smile. From my perspective (and the perspective of various other fans I've spoken to), it seems pretty likely that they are intended to represent a black family — to the point that if this were a Duplo or Friends set instead of a City set, I would fully expect them to have a skin tone which reflects that.

Of course, none of their hairstyles or facial features undeniably single them out as black! After all, people of various races and ethnicities can have features likecurly black hair, braids, and stubble. But together, these features provide strong enough hints that a black child would likely have an easier time seeing themselves and their family in these three minifigures than they would in other minifigures from that set (or previous ones from the City theme). And I don't think it'd be too great a stretch to assume this was the designers' intent, considering how many of these design cues are primarily associated with black characters in other themes. What is the likelihood that they'd employ all those same design cues for an entire family of non-black characters by sheer coincidence?

 

That's basically how I think LEGO should approach representing any demographic that can't be singled out overtly or unambiguously due to limitations of that theme's narrative or design language. They should embrace whatever inclusive options they DO have, and count on fans to pick up the design cues that reflect particular aspects of their lived experience, no matter how subtle or ambiguous they might seem to people who DON'T share similar backgrounds or experiences. And if somebody who DOESN'T belong to the demographic the designer was aiming to represent ends up identifying with the character for any reason? All the better!  In the long run, that's the sort of thing that will hopefully help people recognize that that we aren't as different from them as they might imagine.

 

EDIT: One other thing I wanted to bring up that isn't directed at anybody in particular:

Although I've been quite vocal about my desire for more LGBTQ+ representation, I think it's worth keeping in mind the various smaller ways we already have been acknowledged prior to this set. In fact, there have almost certainly have already been minifigures very deliberately designed to represent members of the LGBTQ+ community, even if we might've overlooked or disregarded some of them because we've been so conditioned to interpret anything LEGO produces through a heteronormative/cisnormative lens.

It's not implausible that the Programmer's flannel shirt tied around her waist might be meant to reflect the popularity of flannel clothing among the lesbian community. Or that the Cabaret Singer might be meant to represent a drag queen. Not that long ago, folks were even discussing whether the Bear Costume Guy was intended as a reference or shout-out to the LGBTQ+ community or pride parades — and while I'm not certain to what extent it was or wasn't, the designers certainly must have anticipated some of us interpreting it that way, or even being drawn to it for that reason.

Heck, for that matter, it's pretty widely known (and even alluded to in the LEGO Minifigures Character Encyclopedia) that the Lumberjack's design and embroidered name are a shout-out to Kel Henson, a Canadian (and openly gay) AFOL. And does anybody really think it's a coincidence that Unikitty, a character who exudes rainbows and positivity, and whose animated series adaptation has a fairly extensive amount of queer subtext, was another of Matthew Ashton's proudest and most famous LEGO creations of the past decade?

Suffice to say, this "Everyone is Awesome" set is not LEGO's first time acknowledging or representing us, just their most obvious one… so far.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Aanchir

[Alexandrina]

2 hours ago, Aanchir said:

But in all honesty, I don't know why that would even need to enter into the conversation.

Honestly, I only intended it as an offhand remark to show the difficulties of good representation as an argument as to why showing the flag in a set is not inherently wrong - I only expanded the comment to what I meant when it became clear that others had read my statement in a damaging way. Plus of course the fact that my head is a whirl every time I read this thread, so sometimes I don't get my thoughts down properly! 

[Alexandrina]

5 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

But isn't that what you're doing to them? Forcing your view upon them?

There are two things at play here. First off, my gender is a core part of my identity - I know some people don't see their gender as fundamental to who they are, but for me it is. If someone calls me a man that directly interferes with my own right to my beliefs and to my identity - and as my gender is my identity and not the person who wishes to misgeender me, my right to be treated as me takes precedent. This would apply in reverse too - if I had a strongly held belief that a certain religion was bunk, and someone else truly believed it, I would not go up to them and tell them its a pack of lies. That wouldn't be respectful, and it's a respect thing. 

Secondly, my being a woman is not up for interpretation at all. Maybe some people don't like the fact. There are lots of facts I don't like, but I can't go around pretending they're not facts. Moreover, especially online, I have not ever presented myself as male (except on disused accounts, before I knew I was trans). Anybody I interact with online knows me as a woman from the first instance, so there's no mental adjustment required on their part - to then turn around and call me a man because they learn I'm trans requires a conscious effort to assert their beliefs over the top of my identity. 

As for your first question: a trans person is always identified by their gender - the trans qualification is just a description in the same manner as "tall" or "scary" or "blue". I am a trans woman because I am a woman, and I happen to be trans. A trans man is a man who happens to be trans. 

[Fuppylodders]

10 hours ago, Lord Insanity said:

 

@allanp too.  Sorry I was not explaining this more clearly.  I put "brain wiring" in quotes to emphasize the imprecise nature of the term.  In context of my original post on the subject I was referring to embryological development of specific "brain wiring" differences.  (That is not something that can be changed later.)  I also mistakenly assumed it was clear in context that "male" and "female" "brain wiring" was more of a spectrum of subtle gradation rather than a hard "this is male" "this is female".  Humans are not separate from life on earth, we are very much a part of the biology shared by the rest of planet.  Biology is a total mess.  Individual humans can have multiple different "brain wiring" "areas" from multiple different spots on the "male to female" difference spectrum.  There are however very specific testable and measurable areas of the brain with differences that tend toward specific genders.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/

Naw it's cool. I've used that term often before, but outside of a LGBTQ+ context, which is why I also used it which may add some level of misconstruing my intended meaning, even though it appears to be of similar use, my use can be rewired, but not so straight forward as' undoing a screw, pulling a wire, popping it in another slot, doing other screw up' kinda thing... I can't just flip a switch and think differently. Trust me, if it was that simple and easy, I wouldn't have half the problems I do have. 

6 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

There are two things at play here. First off, my gender is a core part of my identity - I know some people don't see their gender as fundamental to who they are, but for me it is. If someone calls me a man that directly interferes with my own right to my beliefs and to my identity - and as my gender is my identity and not the person who wishes to misgeender me, my right to be treated as me takes precedent. This would apply in reverse too - if I had a strongly held belief that a certain religion was bunk, and someone else truly believed it, I would not go up to them and tell them its a pack of lies. That wouldn't be respectful, and it's a respect thing. 

Secondly, my being a woman is not up for interpretation at all. Maybe some people don't like the fact. There are lots of facts I don't like, but I can't go around pretending they're not facts. Moreover, especially online, I have not ever presented myself as male (except on disused accounts, before I knew I was trans). Anybody I interact with online knows me as a woman from the first instance, so there's no mental adjustment required on their part - to then turn around and call me a man because they learn I'm trans requires a conscious effort to assert their beliefs over the top of my identity. 

As for your first question: a trans person is always identified by their gender - the trans qualification is just a description in the same manner as "tall" or "scary" or "blue". I am a trans woman because I am a woman, and I happen to be trans. A trans man is a man who happens to be trans. 

Appreciated, a lot more clearer now 

10 hours ago, Shiva said:

Fuppylodders, I hope you are now sleeping well

And if you read it later, I hope you slept well.

The set? It does look nice.

And I think it is more than a LGBTQIA+ set.

Appreciated  I slept well, but damn, I still feel groggy as heck! 

You are also correct regarding your last 2 sentences 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Fuppylodders

[Shiva]

Good sleep is <3

[nerdsforprez]

10 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

If someone calls me a man that directly interferes with my own right to my beliefs and to my identity - and as my gender is my identity and not the person who wishes to misgeender me, my right to be treated as me takes precedent

How does someone calling you something interfere with your right to a belief?  To your identity?  Sorry but this is where you lose folks.  Your rationale falls apart here.  

No one has a right, nor should you allow anyone to, for their words to affect you so much.  Certainly not change your belief, identity or self-image.  THat is the very antithesis of strength and IMO, an Achilles heel for our movement.   It is weakness.   If you are allowing others words to affect you so much, I am sorry and I say this with respect, that is a much bigger problem than even LGBTQ+ issues.  That is a much greater emotional issue that needs to be addressed.  

THink of the un-ending applications you are saying and how many different ways that does not work in society.  Just think of how this would affect one area of social life, the belief in religion.  By your logic I could say that a god believer "directly interferes" with my belief there is no god and my identity as someone who does not believe.  One may think "well that is different because there are different concepts of god, and that concept is not an internal construct. One's concept of gender is an internal construct therefore I have ownership over it."  

This is correct, but only ownership over that internal construct. You, trans, ci, whatever-gendered people however do not have ownership over the construct itself however.  It is NOT YOURS.  

Gender is an idea.  A construct.  NO ONE OWNS these.  In the words of many LGBTQ proponents, it is fluid, changeable, mutable, and open to interpretation.  It is an idea owned by all.  There are many who choose to define that idea by sex.  Biology.  Genitals.  I agree that it is not accurate.  I think it is naive and uneducated.  But, that is an interpretation that many have and it is theirs.  We, as the LGBTQ community, do not have a right to define that for others, just like they do not have a right to define it for us.  

 

 

 

[icm]

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

By your logic I could say that a god believer "directly interferes" with my belief there is no god and my identity as someone who does not believe.  One may think "well that is different because there are different concepts of god, and that concept is not an internal construct. One's concept of gender is an internal construct therefore I have ownership over it."  

I would add that one's individual concept of God is very much an internal construct.  Part of the premise of religious freedom in the United States is the idea that every individual has the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, as opposed to being beholden to the dictates of any particular set of religious teachings.  That includes the right to not believe in any god at all or to pursue other secular forms of the pursuit of happiness. In my opinion, pursuit of happiness through living LGBTQ identities is at least partially a First Amendment issue. That's one of the reasons I've come around to supporting LGBTQ rights, though I have mixed feelings about some of the premises of the movement. As long as people don't pose a danger to each other (bullying, threatening, acting aggressively, engaging in physical violence, etc), act in a discriminatory fashion, or engage in hate speech, everybody should generally be allowed to act, speak, and believe as they please.  Mutual respect is the key - and mutual respect, if practiced, tends to reduce hate, mellow opinions, and produce common ground. Thanks to everybody in this thread who has been speaking respectfully and finding common ground.

Edited May 26, 2021 by icm

[Lira_Bricks]

59 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

How does someone calling you something interfere with your right to a belief?  To your identity?  Sorry but this is where you lose folks.  Your rationale falls apart here. 

"Hello, my name is Bob"

"Nah, I am going to call you Suzy!!"

"But... I am Bob...?"

"I do not care, I do not believe that you are Bob. I am going to keep calling you Suzy. That does not interfere with your identity? right??"

If you can accept someone's name, you can accept their pronouns too.

---

When someone pets a dog and says "What is he cute" and the owner says "It is a female dog" most people just say "Oh sorry, she is cute"

People that do not do that for us treat us with less respect than a dog on the street.

---

Not even starting about those idiotic "counter-arguments" about toilets. What I find the most annoying is that the transphobic (and homophobic, if you read between the lines) people here are constantly talking in this topic about "live and let live", "loving each other" and other nonsensical things to make it look like they are the nice ones.

I am so done with you guys, really.

Since an admin already had to step in, I am going to stop talking with you further. I only post this here so it is clear that I did not "give up because of your AMAZING convincing counter-arguments" or whatever you would tell yourself.

===========

Onto the set: I am going to buy it for sure, Not even for the set itself, but so many cool pieces in nice colours :D Might even buy two >:3

[nerdsforprez]

16 minutes ago, Lira_Bricks said:

If you can accept someone's name, you can accept their pronouns too.

Lol... I almost did not read after this.  "can" and "have to" are different concepts here.  One "can" certainly, but does not have to.  Unfortunately "can's" or "shoulds" do not compel human behavior.  Would certainly be nice if we could do that. But we cannot.  

So many concepts of society are built on this fundamental understanding that appears lost on you.  If I leave my belongings in my car unlocked, someone "can" walk past without taking them.  That does not mean that they will.  

16 minutes ago, Lira_Bricks said:

I am so done with you guys, really.

Clearly you are, especially if you turn to name calling (i.e. "idiotic").  Which is unfortunate.  What I think what many are trying to do in the LGBTQ community is raise some really compelling ideas and expose some really deep-seated biases.  It is great, it really is. But you really will, at some point will be dealing with the armpit of humanity, and that is our biases and stubborn categorical thinking.  Which to expose or deal with will really take some grit.  Some teeth, a backbone.  One will really have to be tough and their ideas will have to stand up to logic.  

To plead "I am so done with you guys really" in the face of logic sets the movement back.  

I will stop as well.  I don't intend to hurt feelings... but honestly, it is frustrating.  To be so vociferous and demanding of social change and then bow out or name call when others have questions about that change seems to hint at ulterior motives....

Edited May 26, 2021 by nerdsforprez

[Alexandrina]

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

No one has a right, nor should you allow anyone to, for their words to affect you so much.  Certainly not change your belief, identity or self-image.  THat is the very antithesis of strength and IMO, an Achilles heel for our movement.   It is weakness.   If you are allowing others words to affect you so much, I am sorry and I say this with respect, that is a much bigger problem than even LGBTQ+ issues.  That is a much greater emotional issue that needs to be addressed.  

If you can't understand why a trans person might be upset when others wilfully ignore their name/gender - and more than that, if you'll insist on calling it weakness and implying that I have serious emotional issues - then I can't see how this is ever going to be a productive discussion. And more than that, it's not a case of allowing somebody's words to affect me. No human being can choose what affects them and what doesn't.

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

THink of the un-ending applications you are saying and how many different ways that does not work in society.  Just think of how this would affect one area of social life, the belief in religion.  By your logic I could say that a god believer "directly interferes" with my belief there is no god and my identity as someone who does not believe.  One may think "well that is different because there are different concepts of god, and that concept is not an internal construct. One's concept of gender is an internal construct therefore I have ownership over it."  

This is correct, but only ownership over that internal construct. You, trans, ci, whatever-gendered people however do not have ownership over the construct itself however.  It is NOT YOURS.  

Gender is an idea.  A construct.  NO ONE OWNS these.  In the words of many LGBTQ proponents, it is fluid, changeable, mutable, and open to interpretation.  It is an idea owned by all.  There are many who choose to define that idea by sex.  Biology.  Genitals.  I agree that it is not accurate.  I think it is naive and uneducated.  But, that is an interpretation that many have and it is theirs.  We, as the LGBTQ community, do not have a right to define that for others, just like they do not have a right to define it for us.  

Honestly, it's staggering that you've managed to twist my words into this - something which neither makes sense nor is what I initially said - and then act like you've trumped us all with solid logic. I haven't ever said that I have ownership of gender as a concept. Nobody in this thread has, to my knowledge. What I do have ownership of is my gender. I am a woman. That is not something which anybody else gets to define, and it's concerning that you seem convinced that it is. Equally, I do not get a say in anybody else's gender. You're using the idea that gender is fluid as a gotcha - but aside from the fact that I've never seen anybody state that gender is inherently fluid (I'd love a link if you have one, but all I've heard is that gender is not binary and can be fluid) there's the simple fact that an individual's gender is often not fluid. My gender is not fluid, not changeable, not open to interpretation - my gender is female. All the time.

As for your other point, you've missed the point of what I've said so thoroughly that I almost wonder if it's deliberate, to discredit what I'm saying - a very common tactic used to silence LGBTQ+ people online. Anybody has a right to any religious belief they choose, or none at all. What they don't have the right to do is define somebody else's religion. You suggest in your comment that you do not believe in a god, which is fair enough. What if I were to insist that you do believe in a god, and when you called me out on it I resorted to the claim that I had a right to interpret your religious identity because nobody owns religion? That's essentially what you've done regarding gender - taken the fact that nobody has ownership of the concept to deny me ownership of my own identity.

43 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

If I leave my belongings in my car unlocked, someone "can" walk past without taking them.  That does not mean that they will.  

And if they take those belongings, they are guilty of theft. If they're caught, they might face a fine or even a prison sentence, depending on the value of what they took. Certainly they won't be praised by society at large for taking your belongings.

45 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

but honestly, it is frustrating. 

Yes, it is. We're on page fifteen of this thread, and so far almost every page has been the same - with the same tired arguments being trotted out over and over. Always polite, I add, but often the content within those arguments is concerning. And we're forced to defend ourselves time and time again, ever patiently - because at the slightest hint of anger or frustration we are discredited. If we try to bow out of the debate gracefully, as @Lira_Bricks just did, we get accused of having ulterior motives. If we don't respond at all, the transphobes get to claim that we have no answer and that they've won - believe me, I've seen it happen too often in the past.

48 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

I don't intend to hurt feelings

You say that, yet in this thread you've already said that trans people have psychosis and continue to insist - despite multiple reasoned comments to the contrary - that other people have the right to define a trans person's gender. Half of my comment now is responding to a comment of yours where you misrepresented what I had previously said to a point which makes me appear unreasonable.

52 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

Clearly you are, especially if you turn to name calling (i.e. "idiotic").  Which is unfortunate.  What I think what many are trying to do in the LGBTQ community is raise some really compelling ideas and expose some really deep-seated biases.  It is great, it really is. But you really will, at some point will be dealing with the armpit of humanity, and that is our biases and stubborn categorical thinking.  Which to expose or deal with will really take some grit.  Some teeth, a backbone.  One will really have to be tough and their ideas will have to stand up to logic. 

This part of your comment comes across as incredibly patronising. "It is great, it really is" - except we're not trying to do anything great, we're trying to get people to understand that our identities are our identities. And honestly, I think it's appalling that you feel the need to say we need a backbone. For many cis people, they get to leave this thread and not have to worry about gender. As a trans woman I don't get that luxury. If I go onto Reddit, or Twitter, or anywhere else, there's a risk of getting these comments or worse from people who don't respect who I am. I've had some pretty horrible DMs in my time - and from what I've heard from other trans people, I've been fortunate in my experiences so far, comparatively speaking. We have plenty of backbone. I could abandon my accounts, create new ones where I pretend I'm not trans at all, and the horrid comments would stop. But I don't. And I don't because I am trans, I am a woman, and nobody gets to take either of those things away from me. Being openly trans online is saying "yes, the trolls might target me, but I'm still going to be me". That is an incredibly brave thing to do.

You are going to find that you get increasingly less engagement from trans people as this thread goes on. And the reason why isn't because you have stumbled upon some logic that we cannot contend with. The reason why is because you continue to repeat the same arguments we have to hear from transphobic people on a daily basis. It wears us down. I won't make assumptions about you because I always try to see the best in people, but your arguments are arguments often used by transphobic people to get the edge in online discourse, the reason being that what they say seems reasonable to the outside observer, those who haven't yet picked a side, and so when a trans person inevitably gets angry and responds as such (and not on EB, but there are plenty of young trans people who aren't prepared for the sheer level of intolerance they'll face for being trans, and will thus get very easily upset) the transphobes get to say "look, what we said was completely reasonable and logical and they got all upset. Clearly trans people are in the wrong here."

Like @Lira_Bricks, I don't have any desire to continue on this discourse. I've had plenty of great interactions with people in this thread, and I thank Lego for producing set 40516 to open this discourse - but given how you continue to twist what I say, and force me to state it again while also disavowing points that you imply that I've made, it seems clear to me that you've already made up your mind on this issue. It does none of us any good to continue this circular discussion.

I do find it a bit sad, I have to say, that the thread has devolved into a debate about affording trans people the basic respect of acknowledging their identity. The set is called Everyone Is Awesome, after all, and it does represent the whole of the LGBTQ+ community - and more besides.

As for the set itself, just looking up pictures I notice from the cross-section that there's tan bricks at the heart of the mid-section. That's actually another selling point for me - I need tan bricks in great plenty, for a film set with a foolishly large scope, and the more the merrier. I'm glad that the pink's on the end, too - I grew up in the era when pink bricks were basically not a thing - bright pink didn't come out until I was six, and aside from a handful of Belville sets when I was two, the old pink wasn't released in standard bricks during my lifetime - so I have a severe shortage of pinks, even after a year of hoovering them up with every Bricklink order.

[Fuppylodders]

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

I don't intend to hurt feelings... but honestly, it is frustrating.  To be so vociferous and demanding of social change and then bow out or name call when others have questions about that change seems to hint at ulterior motives....

Am quoting because you've put it so much better than I could. Am simply trying to learn more, understand more, while providing a set background of current thought processes and legitimate concerns, while being dismissed and mocked... How is one supposed to become educated when the teacher doesn't want to teach but becomes the bully. 

1 hour ago, Lira_Bricks said:

 

Not even starting about those idiotic "counter-arguments" about toilets. What I find the most annoying is that the transphobic (and homophobic, if you read between the lines) 

I am so done with you guys, really.

Since an admin already had to step in, I am going to stop talking with you further. I only post this here so it is clear that I did not "give up because of your AMAZING convincing counter-arguments" or whatever you would tell yourself.

And here I was thinking I was having a discussion with a mature adult. I guess someone slipped through the minimum age restriction... 

'idiotic "counter argument" about toilets', is as much of a legitimate fact as you wanting people to cater to your gender desires. 

So all you've done is literally disprove all those LGBTQIA+ people claiming people in the LGBTQIA+ movement can't be bigots. 

Great effort there for your own movement 

[Lyichir]

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

Lol... I almost did not read after this.  "can" and "have to" are different concepts here.  One "can" certainly, but does not have to.  Unfortunately "can's" or "shoulds" do not compel human behavior.  Would certainly be nice if we could do that. But we cannot.  

So many concepts of society are built on this fundamental understanding that appears lost on you.  If I leave my belongings in my car unlocked, someone "can" walk past without taking them.  That does not mean that they will.  

Clearly you are, especially if you turn to name calling (i.e. "idiotic").  Which is unfortunate.  What I think what many are trying to do in the LGBTQ community is raise some really compelling ideas and expose some really deep-seated biases.  It is great, it really is. But you really will, at some point will be dealing with the armpit of humanity, and that is our biases and stubborn categorical thinking.  Which to expose or deal with will really take some grit.  Some teeth, a backbone.  One will really have to be tough and their ideas will have to stand up to logic.  

To plead "I am so done with you guys really" in the face of logic sets the movement back.  

I will stop as well.  I don't intend to hurt feelings... but honestly, it is frustrating.  To be so vociferous and demanding of social change and then bow out or name call when others have questions about that change seems to hint at ulterior motives....

The thing is, the fact that people CAN choose to be jerks doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an expectation for people to treat each other with respect, especially in a tight-knit community like this one. People here have asked to be referred to by the pronouns they prefer—it's really not a big ask, and while they can't COMPEL others to do so, they can and should call them out for being unnecessarily rude and bigoted when people insistently misgender them.

You seem to understand that concept, given that you seem to be offended by "name-calling". Clearly you understand the idea that somebody referring to you in a way you prefer not to be referred to is hurtful. So why the double standard? Why can't you just accept that respecting people's pronouns is just basic human decency, and that holding people to the expectation of that is not "demanding" or any sort of gross overreach?

Finally, it's very rude, and more than a little conspiratorial, of you to assume that somebody choosing to stop engaging with people who are insistently, repeatedly disrespecting them on a fundamental level hints at "ulterior motives". Here's the "ulterior motive" for why people feel the need to back down from relentless bullying—it makes them feel bad and when people stubbornly refuse to see reason or treat them with the barest modicum of kindness, it's tiring and fruitless to continue trying to talk sense into them. It's fatiguing to try to explain basic concepts like "respect" to people who again and again refuse to give a shit. So the people who actually are caring, and smart, and emotionally open break down and sometimes lose their temper a little and have to take a break from the unending grind of pleading to be treated like any other human being.

[1974]

On 5/25/2021 at 9:40 PM, Blondie-Wan said:

Okay, in case 1974 is seriously concerned this thread isn’t sufficiently LEGO-y, then here, let me help...

Ole

There you go. Glad I could help!    Let me know if there’s anything else I can do.

Very nice as that is my name!

[Aanchir]

3 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Lol... I almost did not read after this.  "can" and "have to" are different concepts here.  One "can" certainly, but does not have to.  Unfortunately "can's" or "shoulds" do not compel human behavior.

It's true, they don't. And if anything, I think that makes deliberate misgendering all the more pathetic and shameful. We as trans folks have no power to force anybody to think about us a certain way or to refer to us a certain way. All we can do is ask nicely for people to show us respect when talking to or about us. And yet so many people continue to act as if we're somehow oppressing them by even making such a simple, harmless request, or by judging them if they continue to disrespect us purely out of disregard for our feelings.

Having a RIGHT to be flagrantly and persistently disrespectful towards us doesn't justify it in the slightest. I have the right to call all sorts of people all sorts of hurtful things, and a lot of those things might even be true. However, particularly when interacting with fellow Eurobricks members, I try to show enough etiquette/propriety to refrain from doing so.

That said, sometimes I do get fed up and resort to insults or sharp retorts. This is because, like other trans folks, dealing with these same degrading conversations and debates about our own identities and lived experiences over and over again (in general, not just on sites/groups like Eurobricks that I typically visit for the fun and comfort of discussing my favorite hobby) can be tiresome and hurtful, and can wear me down to the breaking point if I'm not careful. Every one of us has a limit to our patience, and some of us have endure a lot more pressure that inches us towards that limit.

When you decide you're done posting in this thread for the day, there's no pressure for you to continue debating these same topics on other sites or in other parts of your life. Trans people like me don't necessarily HAVE that luxury, because far too many people consider our existence (and our perfectly ordinary desire for respect and acceptance) an open invitation for debate.

3 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

To plead "I am so done with you guys really" in the face of logic sets the movement back.

Please quit acting like you're only concerned with what's best for us. If your primary concern in this thread is speaking up for those who can't set aside their prejudices and preconceptions of us even long enough to refer to us the way we ask — which costs nothing and harms nobody — you're in no place to act like you have our best interests at heart. You act like people who get fed up with you are failing to "stand up to logic", but the reality is that posts which show a greater dedication to "logic" than "kindness" do not earn you any credibility. The multiple indignant replies that you've received from other users (even as I was typing up this one) are a testament to that.

If you believe I am misjudging you — that you do, in fact, care, and harbor no ill will towards us — this is your opportunity to show it. Show that you care about our feelings and well-being as individuals and fellow members of your community, not just about the potential we show as a "movement". Instead of nitpicking our pleas for respect and acceptance based on their tone, wording, logic, or rhetorical effectiveness… try making a greater effort to show empathy for our experiences, and for the vulnerability and effort it takes to discuss them in a public setting of this sort.

If you truly "don't want to hurt feelings", then make a greater effort to understand WHY people's feelings are hurt by the comments you've been making, instead of accusing US of having "ulterior motives" because we're often too overwhelmed to respond to intolerance and disrespect in a calm and strategic manner. I promise we have no "ulterior motive" here besides wanting to be respected, accepted, and — in a best case scenario — understood.

Even if you decide you want nothing more to do with this thread (even in my own experience, it sometimes IS better to bow out of a particularly overwhelming discussion than to try and push through that frustration and potentially risk making things worse), please take some time to think over these things, re-read some of our comments and your own, and work on understanding why trans folks would feel hurt by a lot of the things that have been said about us, even to the point of lashing out.

Because as frustrating as a lot of your comments have been, I can tell you have a powerful intellect and a strong capacity for learning, and I'm confident that you have what it takes to understand where we're coming from if you're willing to set your mind to it.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Aanchir

[williejm]

Respect and kudos to my trans pals on here trying to field this stuff with grace and patience that I don’t have. The fact that I don’t have to deal with being misgendered or being asked to justify and prove who/what/why I am, is how I know that I have some privilege. But, as a gay man growing up in the U.K. in the 80s, all of this stuff is startlingly familiar.

To those apparently bewildered that their comments, questions, or bizarre logical leaps are being met with some annoyance or apparent defensiveness - maybe ask yourself why that is rather than keep digging? And, seriously, if you *don't* understand why a queer person might be defensive or tired of dealing with the same old sh*t - maybe go read something, rather than treat people on this forum as your own personal gay Google.

I’m so stoked for this set. I’m already thinking what monochrome accessories I can add, or how I might modify to be even ✨more✨ fabulous. Like you @Alexandrina I’m old enough to still be quite giddy by the amazing range of colours available these days!

Edited May 26, 2021 by williejm

[Alexandrina]

2 minutes ago, williejm said:

Like you @Alexandrina I’m old enough to still be quite giddy by the amazing range of colours available these days!

I still remember being bowled over when I got Dobby's Release back in 2002, because it had beige bricks and brown bricks and bricks in a different shade of green! And even grey pieces that weren't just propellers and wheels.

I was a grown woman before I had a single piece in pink or purple! The modern palette is a dream.

[williejm]

6 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I still remember being bowled over when I got Dobby's Release back in 2002, because it had beige bricks and brown bricks and bricks in a different shade of green! And even grey pieces that weren't just propellers and wheels.

I was a grown woman before I had a single piece in pink or purple! The modern palette is a dream.

One of my first sets was the Lego zoo ( 258 ) in 1980 I think - looking back at it now, it’s both so blocky and such a limited palette. It’s a whole world away. But at the time I was amazed by the brick built animals and having some slope bricks! 

[Alexandrina]

1 minute ago, williejm said:

One of my first sets was the Lego zoo ( 258 ) in 1980 I think - looking back at it now, it’s both so blocky and such a limited palette. It’s a whole world away. But at the time I was amazed by the brick built animals and having some slope bricks! 

It's amazing what blows us away in our youths! One of my first sets was 4171, which had Spot the Dog (or at least his head) and that kept me entertained for hours and hours. In fact, it was for many years the only set I kept at my nan's house, while the rest of my Lego was at home, and yet I never tired of it. Now I get bored of a set if it doesn't have at least twelve new minifigure parts! (I jest, but I'm still much harder to please than I used to be).

[Aanchir]

3 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

I still remember being bowled over when I got Dobby's Release back in 2002, because it had beige bricks and brown bricks and bricks in a different shade of green! And even grey pieces that weren't just propellers and wheels.

I was a grown woman before I had a single piece in pink or purple! The modern palette is a dream.

Haha, I will never forget my own childhood excitement of getting the Halloween Bucket, and the promise on its front label of "New ORANGE Bricks!" I was lucky enough to have pink parts even earlier in my childhood (via both the Paradisa theme and the Large Pink Bucket), albeit not much useful variety.

Honestly, one of the things I'm most thankful about regarding the current palette isn't just how many different colors there are (since there are actually a lot fewer than in the early to mid 2000s, believe it or not), but rather that for the most part, they all tend to be used pretty widely!

By contrast, during my childhood, there were a number of colors in themes like Belville, Scala, Bionicle, and Clikits that were almost completely unheard of in more traditional System themes. Which, unfortunately, also meant that useful, non-theme-specific parts in those colors were often way too scarce to be genuinely useful.

Nowadays, even if you're one of those fans who completely ignores themes like Friends, Elves, and Dots for being "too girly' or not having traditional minifigures, you've probably still seen pretty much every pink, purple, pastel, or floral color from the current color palette in various sets from themes like Ninjago, Hidden Side, Monkie Kid, Minifigures, or Vidiyo — especially for minifigure parts and accessories in those themes.

And for that matter, Bright Bluish Green (Dark Turquoise/Teal) parts have become much, much more common since 2018 (when the color was brought back from retirement) than they had been at any point back in the late 90s and early 2000s (before it got retired in the first place)!

[Fuppylodders]

10 hours ago, Lyichir said:

 So why the double standard? Why can't you just accept that respecting people's pronouns is just basic human decency, and that holding people to the expectation of that is not "demanding" or any sort of gross overreach?

Finally, it's very rude, and more than a little conspiratorial, of you to assume that somebody choosing to stop engaging with people who are insistently, repeatedly disrespecting them on a fundamental level hints at "ulterior motives". Here's the "ulterior motive" for why people feel the need to back down from relentless bullying—it makes them feel bad and when people stubbornly refuse to see reason or treat them with the barest modicum of kindness, it's tiring and fruitless to continue trying to talk sense into them. It's fatiguing to try to explain basic concepts like "respect" to people who again and again refuse to give a shit. So the people who actually are caring, and smart, and emotionally open break down and sometimes lose their temper a little and have to take a break from the unending grind of pleading to be treated like any other human being.

I'll tell you where the double standard is. LGBTQ have had bucket loads of time to figure out who they are and become who they want to be/feel they are, no switch flicking required. 

Me for example, essentially brainwashed due to society, and what society wanted me to believe for years, now has to 'instantly' flip my brain switch to think and do the opposite? My thought process is now natural to me. I'm now being *demanded* to change my natural thought process. 

I'm sorry but it's absolute ignorance to expect that to happen at your very whim. I'm not flat out refusing ever, I'm just saying give me time to work at flicking the switch *because it can't happen instantly* just because you demand it. 

That in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY makes me a bigot. For you to be throwing that word around to justify someone else's bigotry is also pathetic in itself. 

I wasn't insistently repeatedly disrespecting lira bricks or relentlessly bullying in absolutely *any* manner, so quit with the snowflakyness. I have genuine issues and concerns in my mind *because of society*, which has made me who I am. People can change and adapt easier if they can make it past those issues. 

To have my own mental issues dismissed and mocked in such a way is as much of being a bigot as one can get, the very type of person the LGBTQ community despise. So quit justifying bigotry from someone in the LGBTQ community or you're no different. 

 

[danth]

"Calling out my bigotry is the real bigotry. Being a bigot is just who I am! How dare you make me feel bad about it!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

[Shiva]

This pronouns thingy.

Not all languages have a he or she, him or hers. Finnish, has hän, hänen, etc.

https://translate.google.com/?hl=en&amp;sl=en&amp;tl=fi&amp;text=she he her his&amp;op=translate

Translating from finnish to english, goofs up google translate.

I do not care if one is a he, she, it or something else. I rather care about how that person is.

[allanp]

For what it's worth I wouldn't refer to a trans woman as a "he" when I know they might hear me. Regardless of if the taking of offence is justified or not, it's so easy to avoid causing offence that way that such a courtesy would be rude not to give. But in my mind and elsewhere the "he" will persist due to fundamentally different beliefs and opinions on what gender is. It's not due to some irrational fear of trans people. I don't find them scary at all! It really is just a different opinion. Saying this thread should continue only to educate the stoopid transphobes is missing the point of what a two way dialogue is supposed to be.

It is thanks to this thread that I have first heard the phrases "male brain wiring" and "female brain wiring". I had never heard of these concepts before. If such a concept is reality I can certainly see how it would be easier to make the body match the brain than it would be the other way round. Sadly after some reading (yes, I did reading!, Not trying to use this thread as a gay wiki!) I didn't find the case for these concepts compelling so I guess I'm still none the wiser. Worth a try though. If you find it compelling and you find it helps explain your own identity to you then you really don't need my, or any one else's permission to continue to believe what makes sense to you, that should go without saying. This is not about one person trying to force a belief onto another. It's about understanding each other.

If for example, you see some money has been taken out of your account, and you are given no explanation why, you may feel some wrong has been done to you. But if someone then explains that it was to pay for a purchase you made a month ago, well then you understand that no wrong has been done to you and everyone feels better. I have seen real transphobes, the people in this thread are not that. We are simply trying to explain that we have a different point of view. We don't agree with everything you say, just like you don't agree with everything we say, and that is ok. We say these things because we think (in our opinion) we have explanations for some of the things that make you feel bad about this whole discussion, and while it would be so much easier to say nothing, to not expose all our knuckle dragging bigotry as some might see it, is it not better and indeed more compassionate to at least try to offer more understanding of each other? Isn't that what we all need and want from each other?

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by allanp

[Fuppylodders]

2 hours ago, danth said:

"Calling out my bigotry is the real bigotry. Being a bigot is just who I am! How dare you make me feel bad about it!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

And I can throw that right back at you.