Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Otter

Anarchy, Socialism, Communism, and community gardens

Recommended Posts

Clem Fandango

 

Nice to see that the trans cult has completely taken over the anarchist movement.

Mind explaining what you mean by that?

 

Yeah, sure. If you aren't familiar with it, queer theory is the intellectual defense of transgenderism. It asserts- like feminism- that gender is a social construct. However, rather than treating it as a class position with men on top and women on the bottom it is treated as a sort of benign self expression. The social injustice here is that you can't choose your own gender, not that gendered expectations are forced on people. Recently, people who are not trans have applied it to their own (completely normal and natural!) gender non-conformity, resulting in 'non-binary' 'gender-fluid' and 'agender' identities.

 

This comes into conflict with the 'gender critical' position in radical feminism. Also, radical feminists have had a history of (rightly, in my view) excluding transwomen from women's gatherings and them and their pesky legal rights allowed them to keep bathrooms and locker rooms women only. No love exists between the two groups.

 

The third wave of feminism (which radfems use interchangeably with 'liberal feminism') has more or less merged with queer theory and has become an orthodoxy on the left. Anarchists have eaten this up, being the most intersectional of the bunch. So now you have queer theory taken for granted, and a relentless medicalising of androgyny. Because every other twat (and I worry about people who, under this framework, identify as 'cis-gender men') is now trans, and supporting trans politics is the most visible way to signal your love of the oppressed, trans politics have become ubiquitous. Other small minorities no the left do not receive this much attention, and besides the aforementioned reasons the trans lobby just has a lot of money in it for some reason.

 

So there's a lot of very cultish love bombing of anyone that feels even slightly weird about their androgyny, questioning the sacred texts of Judith Butler is impossible because it makes no sense anyway, and like in all cults, frantic attempts to stop any contact with people outside of the ideology. Hence vicious lashing out at radical feminists and their supporters, gender critical trans people and anyone concerned about the actions of the trans lobby, like giving radical medical interventions (hormone treatments, mastectomies) to people too young to consent, integrating changing rooms, removing any mention of the word 'women' from women's health services, shutting down screenings of the vagina monologues(!) and normalising transgenderism as the only response to gender dysphoria, instead of less radical interventions that allow you to live as your sex (which are almost always successful in children). It's kind of a huge problem for feminism if they are shouted down and called a bitch anytime they refer to the existence of biological sex.

 

It's not trans people who are a cult, transgenderism is a treatment. The political movement is cultish and people in the anarchist movement support that to varying degrees. Feminists women and trans people but also male supporters of feminism and random concerned citizens who don't tow the party line are threatened with violence and hit with slurs like TERF (for people who agree with the gender critical position) or the even more absurd 'truscum' (meaning a trans person that isn't gender critical but doesn't think self-identification is valid).

 

There is no conversation to be had here. Anybody who doesn't tow the party line is spat on and people share fantasies of burning them alive, especially women and its often paired with more obvious sexism. It is absolute insanity.

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

It's kind of a huge problem for feminism if they are shouted down and called a bitch anytime they refer to the existence of biological sex.

 

That's what happens when an ideology increasingly distances itself from rationality and scientific fact (because rationality and science are patriarchal obviously), and pretends their limited set of ideological views is sufficient to explain and value everything. They are getting a taste of their own medicine. And what is clear from the conflict between those you call the 'gender critical' and the 'trans cult' is that they both have fundamentalist world views based on their own set of limited life experiences, and their projecting of these limited life experiences on society in general. It's a battle between narcissistic closed minded ideologues.

 

Who I think are very reasonable in their thoughts about the current rise of fundamentalist narcissistic leftists are Jonathan Haidt:

 

 

 

And Jordan Peterson

 

 

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

If you think any of your 'little boys respond well to blue' studies are a problem for feminism, you are in for a rude shock. Nobody is given pause by that. It is you who is engaged in ideology if you think estrogen makes you love playing with dolls and testosterone makes you good at chess. 'They are getting a taste of their own medicine' like c'mon. Also feminism is 'narcissism' you don't ascribe personality flaws to any other political movement: feminist women are not- collectively- your wife so maybe chill out with the personal resentment?

 

Joe Rogan is a right-wing woman hating maniac so I didn't watch your videos and I would advise anybody else against doing so. It's a shame he didn't figure out that women are people on his soul shattering cough syrup trips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

estrogen makes you love playing with dolls

Which is true. I'm not so sure about the other example you gave, but I'm not a biologist. I do often remember reading about brain differences between men and women, and how men have a more one sided interest pattern, which leads to systematizing in stead of empathizing, and men being better chess players. Or as I interpreted what I read, men aren't more talented than women at chess, but more inclined to be obsessed by it. But I know jacksh*t about neuroscience, the brain, or biology in general, so anyone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Joe Rogan is a right-wing woman hating maniac so I didn't watch your videos and I would advise anybody else against doing so. It's a shame he didn't figure out that women are people on his soul shattering cough syrup trips.

I'm personally not a fan of Rogan, but I haven't found a reason to have anything against him either. I posted it because it is genuinely one of the better Jordan Peterson interviews, and Jordan Peterson is awesome. Recently I also found out about Camille Paglia, and she's very good too.

 

Feminists should really ditch the 'women are people too' slogan. Nobody thinks women aren't people. Even in Saudi-Arabia women are considered people. So drop the bullsh*t, and make up something better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Which is true.

No, it isn't. This goes back to the comments you made earlier in this thread; it's a woefully inaccurate reinterpretation of the actual study and your continued insistence it's valid is just embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

http://gtaforums.com/topic/834230-gender-sexuality/?p=1069264743

Whoever wants to read the quote from the study Sivispacem wants to continually whine about for themselves can do it there. I bet other studies where girls are more attracted to the type of toys and play activity related to empathizing, and how boys show more of an attraction to vehicles, weapons and competitive behaviour can easily be found, but I don't really see the point of being an amateur biologist. These differences occur in chimpanzees as well, and they aren't taught to chimpanzees by chimpanzee culture... What is interesting is that Sivispacem in his own competitive posting behaviour and interest for cars and weapons is an example of a typical male interest pattern. But he must think he was 'taught' to like all those things. He was indoctrinated by the evil patriarchy to like male typical things.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

http://gtaforums.com/topic/834230-gender-sexuality/?p=1069264743

 

Whoever wants to read the quote from the study Sivispacem wants to continually whine about for themselves can do it there.

How about I post the actual quote:

There is substantial evidence that exposure to androgens prenatally influences childrens sex-typical toy, activity and playmate preferences.

Plus how you summarised it- accurately, I might add- at the time:

There is scientific knowledge about how hormones actually affect interests.

And your new "reinterpretation" of it:

 

estrogen makes you love playing with dolls

Which is true.For posterity, so all the nice boys and girls can see how you pretty much just invented your conclusion.

 

It's just silly and you full well know it, which is why you keep resorting to veiled as hominems instead of constructing a logical argument to support the idea that #1 = #3, which we both know you can't do because it doesn't.

 

I bet other studies

Then why don't you go find some instead of vapidly referencing things that may or may not exist? This is D&D, not the magic handwaving forum.

 

What is interesting is

How is this in any way interesting, or even relevant? Come on Euty, you really are scraping the barrel here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DerangedCrackhead

I think this was discussed somewhere over here few years ago, when the Ukranian conflict was at its heigh but I've seen among local left wing circles lately quite support to Donbass, under the claims of being some kind of antifascist revolutionary venture. Due to the nature of the conflict, with so many fascists involved in every side, either exposed or disguised as communists (with a symbology and discurse resembling to rancid stalinism), and to the fact that over here the local left wing has pronounced nationalist or ethocentric tendencies which often tend to support other left-wing nationalist causes as some paralelism to their own cause, makes me wonder to which point this Donbass thing isn't just Russian nationalist propaganda under the facade of anti-fascism.

Edited by DerangedCrackhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dante財閥

 

 

Nice to see that the trans cult has completely taken over the anarchist movement.

Mind explaining what you mean by that?

 

Yeah, sure. If you aren't familiar with it, queer theory is the intellectual defense of transgenderism. It asserts- like feminism- that gender is a social construct. However, rather than treating it as a class position with men on top and women on the bottom it is treated as a sort of benign self expression. The social injustice here is that you can't choose your own gender, not that gendered expectations are forced on people. Recently, people who are not trans have applied it to their own (completely normal and natural!) gender non-conformity, resulting in 'non-binary' 'gender-fluid' and 'agender' identities.

 

This comes into conflict with the 'gender critical' position in radical feminism. Also, radical feminists have had a history of (rightly, in my view) excluding transwomen from women's gatherings and them and their pesky legal rights allowed them to keep bathrooms and locker rooms women only. No love exists between the two groups.

 

The third wave of feminism (which radfems use interchangeably with 'liberal feminism') has more or less merged with queer theory and has become an orthodoxy on the left. Anarchists have eaten this up, being the most intersectional of the bunch. So now you have queer theory taken for granted, and a relentless medicalising of androgyny. Because every other twat (and I worry about people who, under this framework, identify as 'cis-gender men') is now trans, and supporting trans politics is the most visible way to signal your love of the oppressed, trans politics have become ubiquitous. Other small minorities no the left do not receive this much attention, and besides the aforementioned reasons the trans lobby just has a lot of money in it for some reason.

 

So there's a lot of very cultish love bombing of anyone that feels even slightly weird about their androgyny, questioning the sacred texts of Judith Butler is impossible because it makes no sense anyway, and like in all cults, frantic attempts to stop any contact with people outside of the ideology. Hence vicious lashing out at radical feminists and their supporters, gender critical trans people and anyone concerned about the actions of the trans lobby, like giving radical medical interventions (hormone treatments, mastectomies) to people too young to consent, integrating changing rooms, removing any mention of the word 'women' from women's health services, shutting down screenings of the vagina monologues(!) and normalising transgenderism as the only response to gender dysphoria, instead of less radical interventions that allow you to live as your sex (which are almost always successful in children). It's kind of a huge problem for feminism if they are shouted down and called a bitch anytime they refer to the existence of biological sex.

 

It's not trans people who are a cult, transgenderism is a treatment. The political movement is cultish and people in the anarchist movement support that to varying degrees. Feminists women and trans people but also male supporters of feminism and random concerned citizens who don't tow the party line are threatened with violence and hit with slurs like TERF (for people who agree with the gender critical position) or the even more absurd 'truscum' (meaning a trans person that isn't gender critical but doesn't think self-identification is valid).

 

There is no conversation to be had here. Anybody who doesn't tow the party line is spat on and people share fantasies of burning them alive, especially women and its often paired with more obvious sexism. It is absolute insanity.

 

Melchior, I read your post with intrigue and I am sort of half way eager to discuss it with you and half way thinking maybe it's best to leave it for another day. Doing the latter, however, just inevitably means we'll clash later so I'd rather approach it now on civil terms then end up in a bitter spat with wires crossed and misunderstanding.

 

I'm concerned at a couple of things. Firstly, you mentioned that you think it was right for transwomen to be excluded women's gatherings. Can you explain why you believe this? Secondly, you referred to "TERF" as a slur. T.E.R.F. being an acronym for trans exclusionary radical feminist seems more of an accurate descriptor for me than it does a slur. I'm sure you've probably heard that rebuttal more than a few times, so could you maybe explain why you think it's a slur?

 

Lastly, what is your general view of transgenderism? Classifying it as a cult doesn't really bode well for civil or constructive discussion, but something tells me that you don't genuinely mean that for ALL trans people, unless I'm reading it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

Feminists women and trans people but also male supporters of feminism and random concerned citizens who don't tow the party line are threatened with violence and hit with slurs like TERF

 

how the hell can trans folk be terfs (trans-exclusionary)?

 

i was confused reading all of your post, and i read it several times.

 

tbh i never imagined you as a terf, saying that it is acceptable for trans folk to be excluded in feminism (hell you say they are "rightfully" excluded).

Edited by Niobium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Switch

Whenever i read anything about so called terfs, i (unironically) remember this tumblr post.

 

 

TERF: we are here to abolish the genders
Feminist: oh, so we won't use gendered pronouns anymore?
TERF: no keep those
Feminist: gendered clothing?
TERF: no
thats ok
Feminist: segregated bathrooms?
TERF: no those are important
Feminist: so we're going to do something about the gender binary, yeah? We're going to attack the idea that gender is intrinsically linked to one's anatomy, and we're going to boost the visibility of trans and intersex people, who face the most violent consequences of the sex and gender binaries - yes?
TERF: no
Feminist: then what are you going to do, exactly? What is your plan? How are you going to accomplish this?
TERF: abolish gender
Feminist: How?
TERF: abolish it

 

from: http://crossedmouths.tumblr.com/post/77189810692/terf-we-are-here-to-abolish-the

Edited by Switch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

 

 

 

 

Feminists women and trans people but also male supporters of feminism and random concerned citizens who don't tow the party line are threatened with violence and hit with slurs like TERF

 

how the hell can trans folk be terfs (trans-exclusionary)?

Transwomen aren't excluded from radical feminism any more than men are generally. They are male allies, like me.

 

Transwomen agree with radical feminism because it gives them a satisfying answer. Namely, that gender is a labour hierarchy that placed unfair expectations on them, and so have developed a mental illness. Meanwhile, queer theory tells them that they are inherently women and any dysphoria they feel is down to a lack of external capitulation.

 

You know these politics exist independent of trans people? They aren't a response to transgenderism, but to gender essentialism more broadly. Queer theory is an expression of the latter, so I oppose it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

tbh i never imagined you as a terf, saying that it is acceptable for trans folk to be excluded in feminism (hell you say they are "rightfully" excluded).

I said they are rightfully excluded from women's only spaces. Michfest, shelters, changing rooms, that sort of thing.

 

 

 

I'm concerned at a couple of things. Firstly, you mentioned that you think it was right for transwomen to be excluded women's gatherings. Can you explain why you believe this?

Because transwomen are men and are therefore entitled and aggressive. I'd be interested to know why they should be allowed in.

 

 

 

 

Secondly, you referred to "TERF" as a slur. T.E.R.F. being an acronym for trans exclusionary radical feminist seems more of an accurate descriptor for me than it does a slur. I'm sure you've probably heard that rebuttal more than a few times, so could you maybe explain why you think it's a slur?

A slur is an insulting term, and that is how it is used. It's also 1)tautologous, you could just say radical feminist, 2)imprecise in that it's thrown at men but doesn't apply to us and 3)is not self-applied by anyone- the self applied term is 'gender critical.'

 

Are you really surprised to hear I consider the term offensive? Have you seen how it's used? Look at this thread: people continue to call me a TERF even after I've made it clear that I consider the term meaningless and offensive, because it helps voice disapproval. "Oh my God you're one of them."

 

 

 

 

Lastly, what is your general view of transgenderism? Classifying it as a cult doesn't really bode well for civil or constructive discussion, but something tells me that you don't genuinely mean that for ALL trans people, unless I'm reading it wrong.

I don't consider trans people themselves to be involved in a cult. Transgenderism is a response to gender dysphoria, which is itself a chemical response to being unable to handle gendered expectations. The online transgender movement that helps provide puberty blockers to teenagers, that started this whole "burn the witch TERF" business is a cult. The lovebombing, the hostility towards anyone questioning the specifics of the dogma. Gender critical transwomen who used to be into queer theory call themselves 'gender cult escapees' because they think the abuse they get mirrors that of people who escape Scientology.

 

This is largely part of the liberal, student social justice movement. It doesn't include all trans people, not even close.

 

I definitely don't think this person is a woman, and I think it is beyond ridiculous that he lives in a women's shelter:

 

CzBAD_JVQAArCBF.jpg

But questioning his self-identification is 'violent' and I should be ashamed of myself? That is cult behaviour. Also apparently the above image is 'deadnaming' because it mentions his blokey old name. That's textbook cult language.

 

 

 

 

Whenever i read anything about so called terfs, i (unironically) remember this tumblr post.

That should say 'radical feminist' and 'liberal feminist' tbh.

 

Also I think of this tumblr post:

whiskey-and-c41-radicalfeminisms-slaught

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dante財閥

 

Because transwomen are men and are therefore entitled and aggressive. I'd be interested to know why they should be allowed in.

 

Because..well, they identify as women, and this is what transgenderism is? I think you knew what my answer would be before asking that.

 

A slur is an insulting term, and that is how it is used. It's also 1)tautologous, you could just say radical feminist, 2)imprecise in that it's thrown at men but doesn't apply to us and 3)is not self-applied by anyone- the self applied term is 'gender critical.'

 

Are you really surprised to hear I consider the term offensive? Have you seen how it's used? Look at this thread: people continue to call me a TERF even after I've made it clear that I consider the term meaningless and offensive, because it helps voice disapproval. "Oh my God you're one of them."

 

 

Forgive me, but what is insulting about accurately describing your beliefs? Are we now going to refer to words like "Tories, Commies, Marxists" as slurs too? How is this offensive to you? It's exactly what you are practicing. Excluding trans women from feminist spaces/theory, denying their womanhood.

 

I don't consider trans people themselves to be involved in a cult. Transgenderism is a response to gender dysphoria, which is itself a chemical response to being unable to handle gendered expectations. The online transgender movement that helps provide puberty blockers to teenagers, that started this whole "burn the witch TERF" business is a cult. The lovebombing, the hostility towards anyone questioning the specifics of the dogma. Gender critical transwomen who used to be into queer theory call themselves 'gender cult escapees' because they think the abuse they get mirrors that of people who escape Scientology.

 

 

This is largely part of the liberal, student social justice movement. It doesn't include all trans people, not even close.

 

I wasn't really expecting to hear the boogymen of SJW's brought up here. So you basically believe there is an agenda at play by a vague group of people, some of who are trans, some of who aren't, that perpetuates a "trans cult". A "trans cult" roughly translating to people who believe transgenderism to be legitimate or? I'm not being sarcastic here. I genuinely want to know in case it was coming off that way.

 

As for Danielle Muscato - what you're saying is you don't think that you should respect her self identification as a woman basically because she chooses not to present as one yet? Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Because..well, they identify as women, and this is what transgenderism is? I think you knew what my answer would be before asking that. Because transwomen are men and are therefore entitled and aggressive. I'd be interested to know why they should be allowed in.

 

 

Right except those events aren't make-up and ponies conventions. They are events for women to be free of men. Why should men be allowed to come because they 'identify' as women? What does that even mean?

 

 

 

Forgive me, but what is insulting about accurately describing your beliefs? Are we now going to refer to words like "Tories, Commies, Marxists" as slurs too? How is this offensive to you? It's exactly what you are practicing.

It's what I'm practising according to you. I don't consider it 'exclusionary' not to treat transwomen as real women in feminism, because then there is no distinction between men and women. You know this is an actual women's movement, right? It isn't vague, inclusive liberal feminism that centres men because they can't cry.

 

 

 

Excluding trans women from feminist spaces/theory, denying their womanhood.

They can enter certain feminist spaces, but as men. Otherwise what is the point of having women's only spaces and events? I really don't get it. Why should a transwoman be welcome somewhere you and I are not? Our behaviour in those spaces would be similar to theirs.

 

As for theory, including trans women just destroys any feminist theory. In radical theory, men and women are natural biological categories, and there is a class relationship between them socially, called 'gender.' If 'identifying' as a woman makes you a woman, then gender is no longer an arbitrary class dynamic, it becomes natural and innate

 

What is the counter to this? I've never seen a coherent alternative. What is a 'man' what is a 'woman'? What is patriarchy and how does it develop?

 

The term is an insult because that is how it's used. Did you see the link I posted? "I'll slash your throat TERF c*nt" is something I see regularly. And it isn't self-applied, the way 'commie' and 'Marxist' are. I've told you that we universally prefer another term 'gender critical' so why are you so attached to the term? Why is it so important?

 

 

 

So you basically believe there is an agenda at play by a vague group of people, some of who are trans, some of who aren't, that perpetuates a "trans cult". A "trans cult" roughly translating to people who believe transgenderism to be legitimate or?

I think the "die TERF scum" non-binary tumblr folk are cultish. These specific beliefs: that radfems need to DIE HORRIBLY, that any androgyny makes you trans, and that trans is naturally and innate, are very recently developed ideas. As in, they are only a few years old.

 

 

 

I wasn't really expecting to hear the boogymen of SJW's brought up here.

I am a socialist and so am opposed to liberal social justice. I don't care about 'validating lived experience' and 'denying agency' I care about labour hierarchies and dismantling them.

 

 

 

As for Danielle Muscato - what you're saying is you don't think that you should respect her self identification as a woman basically because she chooses not to present as one yet? Right?

The only reason I accept peoples' self-identification is to avoid triggering their dysphoria. If a guy has a styled beard and number 2 haircut (a look he has to regularly maintain!) then his dysphoria won't be triggered by referred to as Davo. He lives in a woman's shelter! Why have women's shelters at all if you think they are oppressive to men?

 

oh, so we won't use gendered pronouns anymore?

A few narcissistic people using 'they/them' pronouns isn't abolishing pronouns. In fact, the trans movement would oppose this, so I don't see the relevance.

 

 

 

gendered clothing?

Radical feminists celebrate gender non-conformity. This is a bold faced lie.

 

 

 

segregated bathrooms?

lol

 

 

 

so we're going to do something about the gender binary, yeah? We're going to attack the idea that gender is intrinsically linked to one's anatomy,

No because gender is forced on you because of your anatomy. If you think gender exists independent of anatomy, then that is the opposite of abolishing gender. And this is what queer theorists believe: that gender is a totally real and meaningful form of self-expression.

 

"we're going to boost the visibility of trans and intersex people"

 

This has nothing to do with intersex people. The idea that we in anyway oppose intersex people is another lie. Transactivists just like to tack 'intersex' onto their points to paint their opponents as conservative.

 

I don't see how 'boosting the visibility' whatever that means of trans people should be a priority for feminism?

 

"then what are you going to do, exactly? What is your plan? How are you going to accomplish this?"

 

Well I don't know we could try telling men and women that their personalities have nothing to do with their bodies? So, the opposite of what transactivists do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dante財閥

 

Right except those events aren't make-up and ponies conventions. They are events for women to be free of men. Why should men be allowed to come because they 'identify' as women? What does that even mean?

 

Well identifying as a woman is what makes someone a transwoman, or conversely a transman when a woman identifies as a man. What do you think of the other side of the coin by the way? A lot of your anti-trans thought seems to be informed by your feminist theory.

 

 

It's what I'm practising according to you. I don't consider it 'exclusionary' not to treat transwomen as real women in feminism, because then there is no distinction between men and women. You know this is an actual women's movement, right?

 

It's literally the definition of exclusionary, no? They identify and often their lives presenting as women. But they aren't allowed in this feminist space because they don't have the correct genitalia that makes them women according to others and the same school of thought.

 

It isn't vague, inclusive liberal feminism that centres men because they can't cry.

 

 

I'm not really the type of person you have to convince that feminism shouldn't cater to men. I know that. But obviously we disagree on what is and what isn't a man.

 

 

 

They can enter certain feminist spaces, but as men. Otherwise what is the point of having women's only spaces and events? I really don't get it. Why should a transwoman be welcome somewhere you and I are not? Our behaviour in those spaces would be similar to theirs.

 

 

Except for the fact we aren't transwomen, do not live our life as women, identify as women etc. I mean come on now you are acting as if this means absolutely nothing. inb4 "it doesn't!"

 

As for theory, including trans women just destroys any feminist theory. In radical theory, men and women are natural biological categories, and there is a class relationship between them socially, called 'gender.' If 'identifying' as a woman makes you a woman, then gender is no longer an arbitrary class dynamic, it becomes natural and innate

 

 

What is the counter to this? I've never seen a coherent alternative. What is a 'man' what is a 'woman'? What is patriarchy and how does it develop?

 

Maybe you've never seen a counter because I'm not sure exactly what is meant to be countered. Don't get me wrong, half the reason I'm engaging in this debate with you is to learn. I've always respected your opinions before and this particular one has surprised me. I've for as long as I can remember been accepting and pro-trans. I've never known anyone reasonable enough to discuss anti-trans opinions with. You are literally the first person I've known who holds this opinion who isn't otherwise a disgusting and abusive human being.

 

 

The term is an insult because that is how it's used. Did you see the link I posted? "I'll slash your throat TERF c*nt" is something I see regularly. And it isn't self-applied, the way 'commie' and 'Marxist' are. I've told you that we universally prefer another term 'gender critical' so why are you so attached to the term? Why is it so important?

 

Really now? You've never seen commie and marxist used in that way? I definitely have. I think you're being dishonest. As for offering gender critical up as an alternative, I didn't realise you had. I'm not attached to the term TERF. I just think it's what I've always known, and it's a very literal and accurate descriptor.

 

 

 

I am a socialist and so am opposed to liberal social justice. I don't care about 'validating lived experience' and 'denying agency' I care about labour hierarchies and dismantling them.

 

 

So you perceive yourself as somehow more practical than SJWs? I never really gave the term SJW much credit before. I'm pretty shocked to hear someone like you using as if it is worth/means anything. It's always been a vague descriptor to me to discredit anyone remotely progressive.

 

 

 

 

The only reason I accept peoples' self-identification is to avoid triggering their dysphoria. If a guy has a styled beard and number 2 haircut (a look he has to regularly maintain!) then his dysphoria won't be triggered by referred to as Davo. He lives in a woman's shelter! Why have women's shelters at all if you think they are oppressive to men?

 

 

Danielle Muscato when I last checked literally medically wasn't able to transition. She shaved her beard and it grew back. Your problem does seem to be she doesn't obviously identify as a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

CzBAD_JVQAArCBF.jpg

 

you do know that not all trans folk transition the same way, right?

 

god, i've never seen this sh*t coming from you. you make me want to puke.

Edited by Niobium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

Right except those events aren't make-up and ponies conventions. They are events for women to be free of men. Why should men be allowed to come because they 'identify' as women? What does that even mean?

 

Well identifying as a woman is what makes someone a transwoman, or conversely a transman when a woman identifies as a man. What do you think of the other side of the coin by the way? A lot of your anti-trans thought seems to be informed by your feminist theory.

I'm not 'anti-trans' because I don't think that gender dysphoria is a feature of a rational society. The modern trans movement might want to treat trans as an immutable aspect of self, but they're doing themselves a disservice. Are all the trans people who agree with me just like, Jewish Nazis?

 

As for transmen, I think the same thing. That they are dealing with their gender dysphoria.

 

 

 

I'm not really the type of person you have to convince that feminism shouldn't cater to men. I know that. But obviously we disagree on what is and what isn't a man. Except for the fact we aren't transwomen, do not live our life as women, identify as women etc. I mean come on now you are acting as if this means absolutely nothing. inb4 "it doesn't!"

What does it mean? You and I were barred from Michfest not because we have 'incorrect genitals' but because we would ruin the atmosphere with our behavour, and because we are a threat to women. There's no reason to think transwomen are significantly less of a threat. The violent crime rate for transwomen is almost the same as for other men.

 

 

 

Maybe you've never seen a counter because I'm not sure exactly what is meant to be countered.

The idea that gender is a labour hierarchy premised on sexual dimorphism, that a 'man' is an adult human male and a 'woman' is an adult human female. The former are an oppressor class, and we are socialised into that class universally based on our biology. Obviously, under this framework 'gender' isn't real and is just a set of behavioural norms constructed to constrain men and women to different forms of labour. A dysphoric person is someone who has internalised these to the extent that they can't express their personalities without changing their bodies.

 

If this view is literal murder, what is the opposing view? What are men and women, what is transgenderism, what is patriarchy? Apparently I have the incorrect position but nobody will tell me why I am wrong or what the correct position is.

 

 

 

Really now? You've never seen commie and marxist used in that way? I definitely have. I think you're being dishonest. As for offering gender critical up as an alternative, I didn't realise you had. I'm not attached to the term TERF. I just think it's what I've always known, and it's a very literal and accurate descriptor.

Those terms are self-applied.

 

 

 

So you perceive yourself as somehow more practical than SJWs? I never really gave the term SJW much credit before. I'm pretty shocked to hear someone like you using as if it is worth/means anything. It's always been a vague descriptor to me to discredit anyone remotely progressive.

'SJW' is an a insult for uni students who try and police others, despite them being still learning themselves. That's not what I said though, I said 'liberal social justice' as in like, postmodernism: the idea that there is no truth and everything is a social constuction. Queer theory and liberal feminism are subsets of this. It's liberal social justice, as opposed to radical social justice.

 

 

 

Danielle Muscato when I last checked literally medically wasn't able to transition. She shaved her beard and it grew back. Your problem does seem to be she doesn't obviously identify as a woman.

The beard is styled. It's not that I'd consider him more of a woman if he looked like one, it's that it's f*cking ridiculous to say 'acknowledge and treat me as a woman' and then continue to present as a man. Who are you helping by pretending he's a woman? He remembers he's a man when he goes to the barber every two weeks for a maintenance cut.

 

He lives in a woman's shelter! With women! I'm sure at least one woman stormed out after an obvious man walked in and set up shop. I don't think fully transitioned transwomen should be allowed into women's shelters let alone people who still present as men. Who does it help to let him in there? Again: he still looks like a man so it wouldn't trigger his dysphoria to put him in with other men.

 

 

you do know that not all trans folk transition the same way, right?

He hasn't transitioned at all.

 

I genuinely don't believe he's serious. I think he's a pisstaker.

 

 

 

god, i've never seen this sh*t coming from you. you make me want to puke.

lol. Son, by your own admission, you don't understand what I'm saying. Spare me your indignation until you've engaged with some feminist theory.

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

lol. Son, by your own admission, you don't understand what I'm saying. Spare me your indignation until you've engaged with some feminist theory.

not at first, smart guy.

 

 

He hasn't transitioned at all.

 

I genuinely don't believe he's serious. I think he's a pisstaker.

from what i've heard she tried to remove her beard and it came back.

 

anyway, who are you to decide if one's personal experience is real or not?

Edited by Niobium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

lol. Son, by your own admission, you don't understand what I'm saying. Spare me your indignation until you've engaged with some feminist theory.

 

 

not at first, smart guy.

 

To be frank if you understood what I was saying you wouldn't 'puke.' Mine are what gender politics look like when they aren't vague and indefensible redwashed liberalism.

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

 

 

lol. Son, by your own admission, you don't understand what I'm saying. Spare me your indignation until you've engaged with some feminist theory.

not at first, smart guy.

 

To be frank if you understood what I was saying you wouldn't 'puke.' Mine are what gender politics look like when they aren't vague and indefensible redwashed liberalism.

 

well there you have it. "if you understood what i was saying you would not be disgusted because i'm right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
well there you have it. "if you understood what i was saying you would not be disgusted because i'm right."

 

You apparently don't believe gender critical trans people even exist so excuse me for thinking you're looking at this through a simplistic lens. I want what's best for trans people, you want to uncritically support a movement which doesn't even represent all of them, which cannibalises its own allies over constantly changing pomo gibberish.

 

 

 

from what i've heard she tried to remove her beard and it came back.

Well colour me surprised.

 

 

 

anyway, who are you to decide if one's personal experience is real or not?

muh lived experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
San_Sicario

On Dave & Danielle.

 

Would you put a dude in a gorilla suit in a zoo? He looks like one, acts like one, wants to be one. He's been tranque'd in the jungle before.

 

So why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

Because gender≠sex. That's just a dumb comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dante財閥

Honestly I concede to Melch's main line of thinking. Not because I agree with it, but just because I clearly have more research to do before I can effectively challenge him on it. Or maybe I don't. Maybe he's just right. Who knows. The "terf as a slur" debate though I could probably go all night on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftist Bastard

Right so correct me if i'm misunderstanding here but what you're saying is with men being the oppressive class with all the power and gender being merely a social construct transmen and women are the result of norms of the oppressed being internalized to where in to express themselves a biological change is necessary.

 

But how does that include men? how can the oppressive class internalize the norms of the oppressed if its all about the power dynamic between both genders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
San_Sicario

Because gender≠sex. That's just a dumb comparison.

And you're answer seems regurgitated and simplistic.

 

He can't father baby gorillas. But by golly he identifies as a gorilla and wants the opportunity to be who he is.

 

So why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

Because your analogy is an argument about someone just saying "I'm a different sex" to make themselves a different sex, which of course, is nonsense.

 

But that's not what we're dealing with, we're dealing with gender, which by definition is not a physical thing - it doesn't matter about whether you can give birth or whether you "look the part" because those aren't related to gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

He can't father baby gorillas.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the vasic logic simply doesn't hold water. Infertile people can't father baby people, does that make them not-people? A person cannot actually be a gorilla even if they identify as one, but it has nothing to do with their ability to sire baby gorillas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Because transwomen are men and are therefore entitled and aggressive.

 

Could you be any more self loathing? Do you honestly believe men are more entitled than women, or do you just think it is virtuous to say such a thing? Women are entitled to protection by men. Women are entitled to male self sacrifice in state of war or emergency. Women are entitled to the products of male labour and male physical strength. Almost every feminist university class or convention held ever was held in a building built by male labour. If you want a good list of female privileges you can find it here: http://owningyoursh*t.blogspot.nl/2011/05/female-privilege-checklist.html

 

I actually think women are far more entitled than men, but that is how it should be, because women are more vulnerable than men, because 'women and children first' in state of emergency is a rule for our species, and because it is natural for a significant share of men to be genetically obsolete and for there to be more competition among men. Did you know that you have far more female ancestors than male ones? That is because there is much harsher competition between males, and it sucks more to be an inferior man than to be an inferior woman. Feminists who claim that men are 'entitled' are just fundamentally evil and hateful human beings.

 

Also this: http://www.realsexism.com/

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Euty, you post a great deal of utter tripe on this subject but this takes the absolute cake:

 

 

Women are entitled to the products of male labour and male physical strength. Almost every feminist university class or convention held ever was held in a building built by male labour.

Oh yeah because it's so taxing to sit in the air conditioned cab of plant machinery and push levers all day. Come on, you really think modern construction actually required any kind of physical exertion? This isn't the 1930's. That's why builders are always f*cking fat. I probably exert more energy sat at my desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.