Robyn Leslie wrote:
Btw good luck with Florence

Thank you!

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
Any off-topic posts will be hidden and may result in removal from the site. We have zero tolerance for transphobia on Model Mayhem.

Please tell us what Mayhem's definition of "transphobia" is.  Without that, how is one to know?

Weldphoto wrote:
Please tell us what Mayhem's definition of "transphobia" is.  Without that, how is one to know?

Somehow, it's always the people who want you to "define" something who already clearly know what the fuck is being said, but they just want to find the specific bright line of assholery they are allowed to get away with...

Robyn Leslie wrote:
Btw good luck with Florence

SoulDog wrote:
Thank you!

North Carolina is a beautiful State from what pictures I've seen.  I do photograph transgender people, and I also plan to visit the Carolinas someday.  Best wishes to you both!

-bumping this thread-

Richard Tallent wrote:
Somehow, it's always the people who want you to "define" something who already clearly know what the fuck is being said, but they just want to find the specific bright line of assholery they are allowed to get away with...

QFT

Weldphoto wrote:
Please tell us what Mayhem's definition of "transphobia" is.  Without that, how is one to know?

Richard Tallent wrote:
Somehow, it's always the people who want you to "define" something who already clearly know what the fuck is being said, but they just want to find the specific bright line of assholery they are allowed to get away with...

Transgenders are some of the bravest people I know.

Weldphoto wrote:
-
-
Please tell us what Mayhem's definition of "transphobia" is.  Without that, how is one to know?

Does it need to be somehow different from how transphobia is normally described?


The core value underlying all transphobia is a rejection of trans identity and a refusal to acknowledge that it could possibly be real or valid.

Transphobia has no single, simple manifestation. It is complex and can include a range of behaviours and arguments. The consequence of transphobia is that trans people struggle to live openly and comfortably in society. An ultimate outcome may be the erasure of trans people as a viable class of people.

Transphobia includes, but is not limited to:

Attempting to remove trans people’s rights

Misrepresenting trans people

Abuse

Systematically excluding trans people from discussions about issues that directly affect them

Other forms of discrimination   https://www.transactual.org.uk/transphobia

It seems very much like the discrimination and hate mongering against other groups of people.  Would you please tell us what it is you don't understand?

kennethphotography wrote:
i may have contacted one who i think is pretty but....
the only problem i have is that sometimes what if your not quite sure?
to ask someone are you trans when they are NOT trans...........omg lol welcome to block.

i might suggest model mayham update their settings to allow for adding that.   might help.

There are some trans models who post that fact in their "About Me" However it is an interesting suggestion to expand the gender options to include trans.  With California being a liberal State, the DMV here has expanded the gender options, so if a State government can do it, then why not Modelmayhem?  Facebook has certainly expanded the gender options available on profiles, so why not Modelmayhem?   

Would expanding gender options on this site create problems? It is possible that models would be targeted for transphobia hatred, and even put in danger for physical attacks..  All we need to do is look towards Florida to see transphobia and other hatred coming to public attention. Racism and ageism happens and there are options to post one's race and age on this and many other websites. 

Not only have I photographed people who are in the growing LGBTQIA community, I consider myself uniquely a member of the community.  When photographing someone, the focus is on the visual in creating images.  If a "photographer" is so concerned about the gender or sexual identity of a model, then I have grave concerns about their true motive for being a "photographer."  Another thing to consider is do you really need to know?

Richard Tallent wrote:
Somehow, it's always the people who want you to "define" something who already clearly know what the fuck is being said, but they just want to find the specific bright line of assholery they are allowed to get away with...

Well said!

JSouthworth wrote:
Gender is a myth, I think. It's the idea that because men and women are different physically, they must be different mentally, spiritually, whatever. A primitive religious idea with no real science behind it.

-
What were you saying to others about making intelligent posts?

You think?  No, you do not think.  How about doing some real research so that you have the best facts to work with?

Did you make this post for any reason other than to reaffirm your bias against trans people?

There is no science behind the scientific fact that males and females produce hormones in different amounts and you think there is no difference mentally?  No difference in the impact of the hormones?

If you want an unscientific look at gender, then look at the constructs of religion and gender where, somehow, billions of people can be born in a world full of genetic anomalies and yet not one person has a gender anomaly?  Women's and men's brains are not significantly different and our ability to use our brains is no different. Women are just as capable at being good at math, engineering, science- anything from the mind- as men.  The physical differences are not brain differences.[2]

You specifically called out that there is no such thing as gender difference- that gender is a myth based on religious constructs.  The problem is that "Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.  This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."[1]

"Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth."[1]

Leprechauns and pixies are myths.  Gender is not.

Try reading!


[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-a … different/

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-res … in-anatomy

[2] https://www.sapiens.org/biology/busting … nd-gender/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesse … eb152276b9

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
[Leprechauns and pixies are myths.  Gender is not.]. End Quote


For the record I have on my page a transgender model and have shot others that are not on my page. My issue with the term "transphobia" is it is applied often to people who merely don't agree with the idea. To call that a phobia is not only a misuse of the word it is also an attempt to silence disagreement. That is  a step toward ending freedom of speech. I don't like broccoli but that doesn't mean I have broccoliphobia.  Words have meaning and we should use them carefully.

Weldphoto wrote:

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

JSouthworth wrote:
Leprechauns and pixies are myths.  Gender is not.

Try reading!

Indeed! 

For the record I have on my page a transgender model and have shot others that are not on my page. My issue with the term "transphobia" is it is applied often to people who merely don't agree with the idea. To call that a phobia is not only a misuse of the word it is also an attempt to silence disagreement. That is  a step toward ending freedom of speech. I don't like broccoli but that doesn't mean I have broccoliphobia.  Words have meaning and we should use them carefully.

That isn't what I wrote. Don't misquote people, it's misrepresentation. You can get in trouble.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Leprechauns and pixies are myths.  Gender is not.

Do Leprechauns and Pixies have gender? That's the question.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
Any off-topic posts will be hidden and may result in removal from the site. We have zero tolerance for transphobia on Model Mayhem.

I so often complain about messages from moderators. (Mostly because they say, "No, Bill. You can't show that in the POTD contest. It's a mature image..." ...no matter how immaturely I may behave when I first get the answer.)

SO, it seems a perfect time (Thanksgiving Day here in the USA.) to say "Thank you so much for this!" I never saw the comments that have been omitted, nor would I want to. I have enough in my life to make me angry already--e.g., the events referenced in paragraph one.

Hoping everyone's sense of humor works with that last sentence.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Yours,
Bill

p.s. For all those who commented by positively referring the OP to trans-women models, thank you, too.

JSouthworth wrote:
Gender is a myth, I think. It's the idea that because men and women are different physically, they must be different mentally, spiritually, whatever. A primitive religious idea with no real science behind it.

Seminary professor here (well, adjunct, but still way-over-educated on the topic) with credentials, if not ideas, that usually hold up pretty well with puritanical fundamentalists (whom are misidentifed as "Evangelicals" in the socio-political realm):

The primitive religious idea not only has no real science behind it, it requires a grossly-inaccurate reading of the Hebrew scripture most often used to justify misogyny/patriarchy by means of imposing cisgendered, heteronormative monogamy as the only paradigm in which to pursue sexual conduct. Gender stereotypes are theologically contradicted in even the most conservative readings of the passages involved.

I don't check here so often as I should. So, if you'd like to be sure I'm seeing any responses, copy me in with a message on MM. Thanks.

Yours,
Bill

Fall River Photo wrote:
The primitive religious idea not only has no real science behind it, it requires a grossly-inaccurate reading of the Hebrew scripture most often used to justify misogyny/patriarchy by means of imposing cisgendered, heteronormative monogamy as the only paradigm in which to pursue sexual conduct. Gender stereotypes are theologically contradicted in even the most conservative readings of the passages involved.

Well, that makes it all quite clear.

Fall River Photo wrote:
Seminary professor here (well, adjunct, but still way-over-educated on the topic) with credentials, if not ideas, that usually hold up pretty well with puritanical fundamentalists (whom are misidentifed as "Evangelicals" in the socio-political realm):

The primitive religious idea not only has no real science behind it, it requires a grossly-inaccurate reading of the Hebrew scripture most often used to justify misogyny/patriarchy by means of imposing cisgendered, heteronormative monogamy as the only paradigm in which to pursue sexual conduct. Gender stereotypes are theologically contradicted in even the most conservative readings of the passages involved.

I don't check here so often as I should. So, if you'd like to be sure I'm seeing any responses, copy me in with a message on MM. Thanks.

Yours,
Bill

Nice post.  Thank you.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Sounds like anything you read in some Bronze Age text that’s been translated and retranslated, edited and appended countless times shouldn't be used to justify one’s behavior…

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” never took off like it should have.

Agreed!

JSouthworth wrote:
Do Leprechauns and Pixies have gender? That's the question.

-
It is not the question to anyone that seeks to make intelligent posts.  It may be a question for those that are incapable of developing logical arguments or for those who would rather create a dodge then a reasoned answer. 

Your comment not only displays your poor discussion skills, it shows you do not understand the concept of genders.  No surprise.

I am sure that since Leprechauns and Pixies are mythical, they can assign any gender they want to themselves and who would you be to argue with a mythical representation?  For mythical creatures to have a gender assignment requires anthropomorphism, because "gender identity is exclusive to humans."[1]  There is your answer.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_id … %20humans.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
What were you saying to others about making intelligent posts?
Leprechauns and pixies are myths.  Gender is not.
Try reading!
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19987963

I do not know who inserted the word, "Indeed!"

Weldphoto wrote:
For the record I have on my page a transgender model and have shot others that are not on my page. My issue with the term "transphobia" is it is applied often to people who merely don't agree with the idea. To call that a phobia is not only a misuse of the word it is also an attempt to silence disagreement. That is  a step toward ending freedom of speech. I don't like broccoli but that doesn't mean I have broccoliphobia.  Words have meaning and we should use them carefully.

JSouthworth wrote:
That isn't what I wrote. Don't misquote people, it's misrepresentation. You can get in trouble.

-
That appears to straighten out who said what. 

Now to discuss what a useless comment JS's response was!  If you are accusing someone of misquoting you, you should provide an indication of what was misquoted and what you had said.  The fact that another poster had messed up the quote code is something that a reasonable person could have fixed with a tiny bit of effort when quoting the re-quote as part of the chore of making a post lucid. 

When someone has fouled up the quotes, or you are quoting more than one person, a person who strives to make intelligent posts would make it clear who they are addressing with an accusation.  Or didn't you know who?

I shudder at the thought of getting in trouble for misquoting you.  "Misrepresentation?"  I do not have to misrepresent what you say.

Weldphoto wrote:
For the record I have on my page a transgender model and have shot others that are not on my page. My issue with the term "transphobia" is it is applied often to people who merely don't agree with the idea. To call that a phobia is not only a misuse of the word it is also an attempt to silence disagreement. That is  a step toward ending freedom of speech. I don't like broccoli but that doesn't mean I have broccoliphobia.  Words have meaning and we should use them carefully.

-
I agree that transphobia might not be the best word coined for the situation.  A phobia being an overwhelming fear is something that is facing inward in a person with a phobia.  The outward expression may be something else altogether. Would the awkward word "transism" be an improvement?

"According to Merriam-Webster, xenophobia is the "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign”."  In that case, the phobia is defined to include both the inward motivation and an outward expression.

"The Oxford Dictionary defines [racism] as, "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.""  This term gives us the outward expression, but does not include a probable root cause of the outward expression- a fear of the people of other races.  While I have no doubt that some do not fear the people they hate, some do.

While we look at the word phobia and relegate the definition to being no more than fear, isn't it reasonable that fear can be brought forth in expressions of hatred?  The Oxford defines transphobia as "dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people."  Like xenophobia, transphobia is defined, at least in this source, to include the outward expression of prejudice, not just the inward fear.

As you have worked with trans subjects then it would be reasonable to say that maybe a person such as yourself isn't transphobic.  Or, maybe, if transphobia is measured on a scale of one to ten, such a person that merely dislikes the idea of being trans is a one and someone like DeSantis is a ten.  But, as you said, it isn't that you won't work with a trans person, it is that you don't agree with the idea.  But, the idea of what?  The idea that people think they are trans or the idea that people are trans?  Isn't either of those the same as rejecting the reality of a trans person who doesn't think they are trans- they know they are trans?  To the trans person, being trans isn't an option, a choice, or an idea.  It is their reality.

Broccoli is rather uniform.  I see broccoli and I recognize broccoli.  I taste broccoli and I recognize broccoli by the taste.  The texture is uniform, even the sound of it breaking.  No, we do not have to like broccoli.  But, I see a person and I am unlikely to recognize that person as trans or LGBTQ of any type.  I see a person.  I may not even be able to tell if some binary people are male or female.  People are not uniform like broccoli.

I can shout at fields of broccoli, "I despise your very existence," and not one broccoli plant will shed a tear regarding my rejection.  I can do the same at various people citing their characteristics and I will get back a range of emotions.  I have no more right to wish broccoli out of existence than I do to do so towards any people group.  Though some people accept that others like broccoli, just as others like people that are in other groups that some people don't like.

Can people separate not liking the idea of trans from not liking the person who is trans?  The ideal is that we hate the sin but not the sinner, but in reality, the hate isn't usually directed at the sin, it is directed at the person.

While transphobia may not be the best word that could have been coined, it is the word that we have.  Why fight being included in the definition of the word when we can grow to recognize our shortcomings and be not transphobic- excluding ourselves?  Rather than considering the term as one being used to silence dissension, what if it is really about fostering acceptance of people that are as they really are?