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*

  • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    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”.

    • underscores@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 days ago

      I just want to add that it’s not just the idea of gender being immutable, it’s identity as a whole. So much of society is built around stuff like legal names. They use them to track and control people. And then trans people are out there deciding to change them just because we want to, or using prefered names that don’t match our legal names. The idea that people can just decide who they want to be is threatening to them.

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    I do wonder what their end game is. History surely will not look on them favourably, so who would want to be the villain on the world stage? Yes history is written by the victors, but only for a short while until the truths come out. I just can’t understand why anyone would deliberately want to be on the wrong side of history.

    • ooli2@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      most real-life villain thinks they are doing good. JK Rowling rhetoric is all about “protecting women”. She probably is certain she is some sort of martyr trying to save the world

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        I can actually believe that JK thinks she’s doing the right thing. She’s losing friends, money, reputation for saying what she truly believes, no matter how messed up. She never pretended anything but.

        Elon is not like that. Elon knew how to play the progressive part and have a progressive wife, and do/say progressive things to make himself look good when it suited him. The face-mask reveal and the 180 turn as he ditches his old friends (they served their purpose) for new ones, whilst his wealth skyrockets… this man surely deep down can’t believe that he has noble intentions.

  • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 days 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.

  • thezeesystem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 days ago

    Mostly a people to blame and for others to fear monger, it’s a way to make people look the other way also, a common “enemy” instigated from the true enemy. And sense there is not a lot of trans people statistically it’s hard for them to defend themselves. It’s all about manipulation and control over the people

  • purplemeowanon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 days 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.

  • Stepos Venzny@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 days ago

    Trans people’s very existence requires the rest of us to question our own upbringing. There are a lot of childhood experiences that boil down to you doing something or not doing something on no basis other than the fact that you were told.

    You were told by your family, you were told by your friends, you were told by random strangers, you were told by the media, and they were all telling you the same thing. So you listened, even though you didn’t know why they were saying it. Surely EVERYBODY can’t be wrong, right? Some people might have told you something contrary but they were the losers, the outcasts, the villains. You don’t want to be any of that, surely?

    For someone to transition, they are required to do the exact opposite of what so many told us all. They embrace the very outcome we were threatened with when we failed to conform, that we would not actually be the gender we were failing to conform to.

    To accept that they are valid in doing so requires us to admit that many of our own guiding forces were actually just bullshit. We have to question why we are the way we are anew. If what they’re doing is strong, what we did, what we’re continuing to do, was weak.

    When confronted with the idea that we were all just raised wrong and that much of what we collectively spend our time and energy stressing about is stupid and pointless, how many people do you know that will just shrug and say “oh well” and then move on with their lives? Easier to find an excuse to keep doing what you were already doing. “They’re just lying because they’re perverts that wanna cheat at sports.”

    Some of these rich people are insidious and manipulative, no doubt, but the loud ones are usually just idiots no different from the uncle you don’t want to talk to except that being rich means they’re able to yell louder.

  • Erika3sis [she/her, xe/xem]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Transphobia, just like any form of queerphobia, serves the maintenance of property rights and the reproduction of the workforce that generates billionaires’ wealth. This is where the antagonism comes from.

    Also, please don’t call Elon Musk that.

  • inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • ooli2@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      so 3 different agenda, with the same result. Probably it is as coincidental as that

    • Alice@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 days 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.

  • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    5 days ago

    I wouldn’t say that JK Rowling was “going after” transfolk, she just didn’t agree with their premise. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that’s hatred

    • latenightnoir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      5 days 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!

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    5 days 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.

  • Zikeji@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    Because there are alot of ignorant people in the world afraid of what they perceive as different.

    In your first two examples, regardless of not being politicians it’s clear that by helping put politicians in power they benefit, so whether they genuinely care or not, it’s just about money and lack of compassion to them. And continuing to drive class warfare continues to benefit them.

    In your last example, I think that person is just in the ignorant and afraid of change category with an unfortunate amount of exposure.