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*

    • latenightnoir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 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!

  • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 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.

  • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    they’re the newest scapegoat, the bourgeoisie always need a scapegoat to redirect the other classes grievances to them.

    • f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      The US right-wing was constantly bitching about “cancel culture” and now that they are in power they are cancelling everything they can.

  • Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Its a thing of domination and power. If there are less people with human rights, you can exercise your power more without restrictions.

    first the trans, then the gays, then the “other races”, then the women, then the poor. and boom, only the elite have rights.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    I always thought it was about power. Maintaining power structures requires a clear dividing line, somewhere. The line between women and men is artificially upheld, to create the illusion that there’s “naturally two categories in everything”. If people got the idea that you could “transition”, that would overthrow a whole lot of the artificial divides that we have in our society today.

  • Yggnar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    So there is definitely more to it as plenty of people have already explained, but when it comes to Elon and Rowling they both have personal reasons for their anti-trans beliefs. Rowling was sexually assaulted, and now finds the idea of, in her words, “men pretending to be women” utterly terrifying due to her PTSD, and is seemingly incapable of seeing trans women any other way.

    Elon on the other hand went through a bunch of drama bs with his family, he’s got at least one trans kid who has disowned him, and he spiralled out from there, eventually finding a place among the far-right Nazis who have only reinforced his preconceptions about trans people and trans kids.

    No idea what the fuck Zuck’s trans villain origin story is though.

  • jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    They are a fairly small group compared to other marginalized groups, and particularly vulnerable compared to others. There is already a lot of misinformation about them. Average people often dont run into them or understand them Well enough to make informed decisions. Its easy for billionaires and republicans to wield religion against them. They are often vocal about their beliefs. Intersectionality is also important (e.g. supporting and protecting other minority demographics’ rights because it is the right thing to do, and tearing each other down is counterproductive) to them, which isnt always the case. Disappearing them sets an example and is a test run for setting up the infrastructure and means to take control. See: nazi germany with the deaf, and current marginalization by the trump administration of the trans and disabled communities.

  • Stepos Venzny@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 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.

  • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    Gender is a load bearing brainworm for capitalist society. Capitalists need stratification, having a gradient of various degrees of precariousness for workers to experience that would push them into accepting a worse deal for selling their labor. Gender is clearly one of the primary ways to achieve this: an absolutely incredible amount of domestic labor is performed without compensation by women every day, and society would fall apart if it wasn’t. The rigid structure of the patriarchy is a key feature of this system, which means that trans people represent a clear break in that logic; if AFAB individuals can just choose not to be subjected to gender-based exploitation, it starts to rip the whole thing apart. Equally, transfeminine people represent another break in the opposite direction. The patriarchy is more or less incompatible with the existence of trans people, at least without significantly transforming itself.

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        I wanna add that the way I formulated it is incomplete, or at least too partial to the functional perspective that someone who wishes to preserve the status quo would have. Obviously trans people don’t just “choose” their gender, it’s much more complicated than that. But I think it’s worth looking at things from this lens to understand why the billionaires in particular are recalcitrant about gender.

  • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 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

  • daggermoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago
    1. They’re a scapegoat
    2. People fear what they don’t understand. If they actually went out and talked to trans people they may realize they’re normal people just like anyone else.