>Mental characteristics, including but not limited to allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness, and unsupported comparisons between PC groups on the basis of inherent intellectual capacity. We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like “weird.”
I feel like that second sentence maybe was written wrong? Maybe they meant "do not allow"?
I'm also having trouble even following what it means, or why "weird" is a part of that example. "Weird" isn't a part of the rest of that sentence at all...
I believe it is correct when they say they do allow when the allegations of mental illness are based in the context of religious or political discourse around transgenderism. I believe if you just made a blanket statement absent any context it would be disallowed.
Also The inclusion of the non-serious example word weird, is simply a way of demonstrating that saying you believe transgenders are weird isn't offensive speech against their community guidelines. That seems very sensible to me because many people are weird for many attributes often times we attribute weird to anyone not like us.
That's not what that says. "Given" means that because "political and religious discourse about transgenderism [sic] and homosexuality" exists it's okay to dehumanize trans people.
This is alarming because the US Government is currently implementing Project 2025, part of which culminates in declaring trans people pedophiles and sex predators and executing them. This week we've seen discussions between trans people about medical procedures slanderously portrayed as "sex chats" and "fetishes." The extreme level of dehumanization and villainization during a period of political purges and propaganda is an ominous sign of imminent moral collapse.
Nothing in the Facebook statement mentions the word dehumanize. You're simply inventing and adding a term in where none exists. It's talking about the view that transgenderism comes from a mental health disorder. Nothing in a belief, absent further context, that transgenderism is a mental health disorder is dehumanizing. Trying to link the two is so disingenuous that it's hard to take you seriously. Do you think when someone says anorexia or bulimia is a mental health disorder they have somehow dehumanized the person? Because in order to be logically consistent you would have to think labeling anything as a mental health disorder is dehumanizing.
Religion and politics are highly cultural things. Mental health and what is deemed as correct mental health versus abnormal mental health are cultural understandings and not universal norms. I know people like to think they are absolute universal norms but they are not. A culture defines what is considered normal and what is considered abnormal and oftentimes they can associate the abnormal condition to being due to mental health. Western societies which are considered very progressive on this front change their view all the time as their cultural norms change.
So it does change the meaning a lot. Instead of simply screaming at someone that they are mentally defective because they're transgender. Now it becomes a cultural discussion which is underpinned by politics and religion of what is considered normal behavior in your society. The normalcy of societies has had both good and bad repercussions and will continue to do so for some time because none of us are all altruistic all the time.
I feel like that second sentence maybe was written wrong? Maybe they meant "do not allow"?
I'm also having trouble even following what it means, or why "weird" is a part of that example. "Weird" isn't a part of the rest of that sentence at all...