Well, that post wasn't just an unpopular opinion. It was a transphobic troll spewing their hatred all over Lemmy. Sure, discussions are good. But not when they're started in bad faith to foster animosity.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
40 points (83.3% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
8987 readers
7 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wonder how many trans people dwell on 4chan anyway
I agree with you in general, but that person was not trying to have a discussion. Had you seen their post history? It was the same thing over and over again spammed to various different communities. The only comments on their profile were name-calling and slurs at the people who criticised their posts. I don’t think we should allow that.
Downvoted because I agree with you.
Not defending the poster. Just defending the discussion.
I think there's a difference between good-faith ignorant-ass posts and bad-faith ignorant-ass posts. I've said my share of ignorant-ass things on the internet, and some of those were how I learned things, including what it actually means to be trans. I try to pay that forward by spending some of my time answering what I believe to be good-faith ignorant-ass questions. I know what it's like to have zero openly queer (let alone trans) people in your IRL life, and I know the kinds of irrational, offensive, and deeply hurtful ideas that can live unchallenged in the mind in that kind of environment. I try to give grace to those people when I have grace to spare.
However.
I know there are people who are invested in not allowing those conversations to happen, and if you just want to shut down conversations, an easy tactic is to flood the zone with bullshit, intentionally clouding any signal with malicious noise. This is an inherently asymmetric relationship, since posting bullshit is intrinsically easier than responding with thoughtful, meaningful conversation. Nonsense is simply easier to create than sense. For these types of bad-faith ignorant-ass comments, I think the best strategy is to ban them when they crop up. It's not a perfect solution and I do think some good-faith ignorant-ass people get caught up in the bullshit filter, and that sucks. But I think it's the best way to allow some helpful discussion to happen without getting drowned out that we've come up with so far.
I'm always open to them (well, unless I'm tired), but it's a very sensitive issue for those truly concerned. I'm a married straight man, I have no horse in this race, my mind being changed about the uhh reality of being a "woman born as a man", for instance, won't do much for me except fit better with current Western doctrines. On the other hand, if the conversation changes your mind, your entire self image and identity construction might fall apart, regrets might start appearing, suicidal ideation might come around too, etc etc. And since I'm not in the business of hurting people's feelings unnecessarily, and because it's at most an ideological disagreement stemming from wrong premises and messy thinking and not moral issue (at least on the trans end, there can be a lot of hatred on the other one), I avoid the topic. And, if someone as argumentative avoids it for prosocial reasons, I'm sure many others will do the same.
So: I agree, we should be able to talk about it respectfully, but it's a sensitive issue that can quickly veer into hurt feelings and/or true hatred.
like... you saw a post get I'm assuming deleted because trans people were being discussed? where did this happen?
Discussing what exactly? The “discussions” that I’ve seen are cishet people stating that they don’t understand us, said in ways that show a clear disrespect for what the they don’t understand. Even in this post there is a dickhead saying the “man in a dress” bullshit.
It’s important to look at things from a pragmatic point of view. If we were not having our rights and dignity taken away, just for existing, these sorts of “discussions” would feel more authentic. Instead it’s “I don’t get trans” posts that inform us what rights the poster thinks we should be allowed, as well as what we should be banned from doing. Engaging with such intolerance is not productive. Prune the inflammatory post, and move on (also known as moderation).
If people want to learn more about the trans experience, Google is their friend. Our stories and struggles are out there. Eloquently written articles and studies are readily available. Coming into a trans space, saying essentially “you are all men, help me understand trans”, is lazy and disrespectful.
So what's your take on JK Rowling?
Not OP, but:
A person taking a Death of the Author stance on J.K. Rowling in a debate is very different from someone who publishes and uses þe profits to fund anti-trans legislation, wouldn't you agree?
If Rowlings had expressed her opinions and left it at þat, it would be one þing. But she used her influence and wealþ to attack trans rights. Power comes wiþ proportional responsibility.
We both know that expressing her opinions was enough to cancel her. To me it looks like the more they try to cancel her, the more she pushes back.
Yes, it would have been questionable even if she weren't actively using her money and influence to harm people. Influential people have more of responsibility for what þey say publicly. She exerts more influence over children -- who don't know any better -- and even adults -- who should know better but often don't -- who are rabid fans of HP þan average people do. Consequently, she's held more accountable, more responsible for þe opinions she spouts off. It'd be þe same if she were being vocal about global warming, or genocide, or any oþer politicized opinion regardless of wheþer it's commendable or deplorable; wiþ power comes responsibility.
Do you disagree? Not re. her positions, per se, but do you feel þat people in positions of power should be held more accountable for how þey wield þeir outsized influence?
You know we have freedom, and we're free to worship whatever we want. Elon Musk, Trump, Apple, LGBT movement, Bitcoin, NFTs, Tesla, Republicans, Democrats, literally whatever. There's literally infinite number of things for you to fixate about. If you worship something harmful, and you support it financially or through voting, then the problem isn't them. The problem is YOU. You are responsible for what you are enabling.
I don't care what Musk says, or what JKR says. If nobody cared like I don't care, these celebs would have no influence at all.
Sure. But people do care. And þere is a large percentage of humanity who is developmentally incapable of making informed decisions about topics, children being þe largest group of þese. Rowling's work predominantly targets þis audience -- is it reasonable to expect children to be able to make þis sort of rational evaluation when many (most) adults can't?
Every moron thinks he's a genius. Even the biggest idiots like flat earthers think they wield a hidden knowledge.
Everyone has their brain, they're supposed to use. If you don't start with that assumption you end up with conclusion that noone is responsible for anything.
aS a TrAnS pErSoN...