The statement you quoted is the most general statement I made. It was worded that way precisely because this phenomenon is not exclusive to trans people. That’s just how the topic came up.
So no, it makes no difference that this guy isn’t trans because that’s only one subset of visible characteristics brought on by body modification that we’re talking about. There are many other kinds, some of which definitely apply to him.
We agree on this. Now, can you see why framing something that is not exclusive to trans people as “looking trans” is transphobic? Can you see how people would use things described as “looking trans”, even when they are in no way exclusive to trans people, purely because they were described that way? And how that can be problematic? Such as “transvestigators” (like TERFs) incorrectly identifying and targeting cis women with hatred.
You’re crossing wires a bit here. The first one doesn’t matter too much but it’s that I never actually said this person looks trans. Someone else did and I confirmed that it is a thing, although not necessarily in this particular case.
The main confusion seems to be that you don’t think trans people can have distinctive features brought on by surgery or hormone therapy. Some of them definitely do. There are other kinds of tells that apply to people who get other types of work done. MAGA face is one example. Different groups of people tend to get different types of work done and groups of similar people tend to have similar work done. It’s certainly not universal but it’s enough to notice a pattern with specific types of people. This applies to all groups of people who get work done, but it does present differently for each group.
It shouldn’t be controversial to say that surgery oftentimes leaves clues that it was performed or that lots of trans people have had surgery. Those are just two facts about the world that have nothing to do with any kind of moral judgement on trans people.
The statement you quoted is the most general statement I made. It was worded that way precisely because this phenomenon is not exclusive to trans people. That’s just how the topic came up.
So no, it makes no difference that this guy isn’t trans because that’s only one subset of visible characteristics brought on by body modification that we’re talking about. There are many other kinds, some of which definitely apply to him.
We agree on this. Now, can you see why framing something that is not exclusive to trans people as “looking trans” is transphobic? Can you see how people would use things described as “looking trans”, even when they are in no way exclusive to trans people, purely because they were described that way? And how that can be problematic? Such as “transvestigators” (like TERFs) incorrectly identifying and targeting cis women with hatred.
You’re crossing wires a bit here. The first one doesn’t matter too much but it’s that I never actually said this person looks trans. Someone else did and I confirmed that it is a thing, although not necessarily in this particular case.
The main confusion seems to be that you don’t think trans people can have distinctive features brought on by surgery or hormone therapy. Some of them definitely do. There are other kinds of tells that apply to people who get other types of work done. MAGA face is one example. Different groups of people tend to get different types of work done and groups of similar people tend to have similar work done. It’s certainly not universal but it’s enough to notice a pattern with specific types of people. This applies to all groups of people who get work done, but it does present differently for each group.
It shouldn’t be controversial to say that surgery oftentimes leaves clues that it was performed or that lots of trans people have had surgery. Those are just two facts about the world that have nothing to do with any kind of moral judgement on trans people.
Would you assert that the majority of people who have had cosmetic surgery are trans?
No