In this particular case this identity is instrumentalised in order to modify the behaviour of Patreon.
This simply wouldn't be done so readily unless the identity within this context carried power.
I do not think that trans people in general have power. However, a lack of power in one context, can sometimes be an arbitrage opportunity in contexts where an oppressed identity is currency.
I'm not against this but the underlying power dynamics are too interesting to be ignored.
That said, I dislike the usage of the phrase "literally scared for their lives". This phrase is meant to be used to call on others to defend lives and here it is being used to call on other's to defend an ability to make money selling porn. Crying wolf undermines the ability for truly endangered people to ask for help. It is ethically repulsive to me that people that consider themselves good dilute the meaning of cries for help for base political expediency. By doing this, they may well deprive the most desperately helpless people of their only means for help.
It seems obvious to me that they're conflating economic opportunity with safety, as it is the only viable political position left to them. As has been established elsewhere, companies do not owe workers a means to make money. I do not personally agree with deplatforming, but there is currently no right to a job, and, if such a right was to exist, it would not be possible to administer it fairly depending on the relative oppression/privilege of a person. On the other hand, I guess accrued wealth and number of potential income sources could be seen as reducing the likelihood of homelessness and perhaps we should use this to determine whether a loss of income could affect somebody's safety. (In this case I think that's unlikely: there are so many other online social networks that are supportive.)
This simply wouldn't be done so readily unless the identity within this context carried power.
I do not think that trans people in general have power. However, a lack of power in one context, can sometimes be an arbitrage opportunity in contexts where an oppressed identity is currency.
I'm not against this but the underlying power dynamics are too interesting to be ignored.
That said, I dislike the usage of the phrase "literally scared for their lives". This phrase is meant to be used to call on others to defend lives and here it is being used to call on other's to defend an ability to make money selling porn. Crying wolf undermines the ability for truly endangered people to ask for help. It is ethically repulsive to me that people that consider themselves good dilute the meaning of cries for help for base political expediency. By doing this, they may well deprive the most desperately helpless people of their only means for help.
It seems obvious to me that they're conflating economic opportunity with safety, as it is the only viable political position left to them. As has been established elsewhere, companies do not owe workers a means to make money. I do not personally agree with deplatforming, but there is currently no right to a job, and, if such a right was to exist, it would not be possible to administer it fairly depending on the relative oppression/privilege of a person. On the other hand, I guess accrued wealth and number of potential income sources could be seen as reducing the likelihood of homelessness and perhaps we should use this to determine whether a loss of income could affect somebody's safety. (In this case I think that's unlikely: there are so many other online social networks that are supportive.)