How come in every online leftist group almost all the women are trans women. I see this everywhere on leftbook and left Twitter. Even in irl left orgs 30-50% of the women, especially the younger ones, are trans.
Do cis women tend to be turned off from leftist groups?
Other urls found in this thread:
I think it's better to say that trans women are turned onto leftism than cis women off of leftism. Most political activist groups have more men than women, trans people are just more likely to be involved with this particular sphere of politics.
Cis women usually have social lives and don't waste their time with organized politics, even if they agree with it. That's for nerds, losers and outcasts.
Yeah but it seems really disproportionate, aren't trans women something like 0.1% irl?
brocialist culture tends to turn women away from the left, and most transwomen are involved in anarchist circles.
The thing is you see a ton of cis women in the typical lib spaces like Democrat forums and campaigns, etc
transwomen are oppressed by the capitalistic monopoly over vital medical resources they need, so they become socialists to show solidarity with the rest of the working classes.
They seem pretty big in ML circles as well, like a lot of the most active online people in Marxist Center are trans women
But the same is true for cis women's healthcare, but cis men seems to strongly outnumber cis women in this groups
what do you mean by that
dsa sex pest cokehead type guys?
in other places online it feels really stilted and constrained due to regulations against that sort of thing
Trans women are more likely to get involved with leftist politics because, in order to get to a place where they might not want to kill themselves, they have to spend years of their life trudging through red tape and maybe, just maybe, eventually going into horrible debt just to feel like themselves for once. That's a pretty powerful message on why capitalism doesn't work. Once you have a personal experience like that, you're going to want to dismantle it if you can.
being "anti idpol" generally means excluding black, female and queer voices from discourse, so it damages solidarity and community in that regard.
Because when it's time to discuss issues that affect natal females they are shouted down for the most part, it's much better to just post in spaces with other natal females
want to give any examples?
discussing something like reproductive rights is usually a minefield because you must be super careful not to say the wrong thing so you dont accidentally "invalidate" someone's gender identity and even then it's not uncommon to have someone say talks of abortions and pregnancies make them dysphoric or something along those lines.
honestly i don't really see anti idpol people as having that kind of presence or sway over the rest of the community
lmao negro what??
Tell me some stories about these.
That's stupid as fuck. As someone who stands fully with trans liberation you shouldn't be in a revolutionary group if you can't even withstand listening to certain topics.
It's not uncommon for feminists to be transphobic
what does this have to do with anything that was said?
it is understandable that there is friction in feminist discussion groups sometimes
This
Yeah but they aren’t trans guys that can pass as women, much less women that are attractive. Leftist orgs are on the periphery so they can be way more willing to be patient with new members, also leftist org are in general less spooked about socialital norms, so they get treated better leftist orgs.
Sorry but the other reason is that regardless of what feminists say the first world absolutely coddles women, there’s little reason for the average woman to want to so fundamentally challenge capitalism as to get into a leftist org. This is true of trans men as well I can’t say I’ve ever met a trans person that was anything more than superficially against capitalism.
lmao what
trans women are men. the usual reasons why men outnumber women on the internet apply here.
i don't know the representation of actual, meatspace organizations but i imagine there are more women involved at that level. trans are often really really online, again for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that there really aren't a lot of meatspace places for them to congregate due to sparse numbers and their generally poor social status.
i don't know how many trans are actually socialist in a meaningful sense, and how many are just jumping on left-sounding trends or joining because they think the socialist revolution will pay for their SRS. i can't doubt all of them because i've talked to some surprisingly aware transwomen (men) who have a decent enough grasp on theory even if they have a blind spot on gender politics and queer theory nonsense.
Trans women are women if you view 'womanhood' as a construction of feminine identities by the society. That goes the same with any identity, really. So long as you work backwards off of theory and then form a conclusion (i.e. feminine-presenting men are oppressed by patriarchy, therefore expression of true gender identity is the ideal 'form' of womanhood, as ideal as any other expression of femininity) then you can make the same case for race and even class. If transitioning to the ideal form is a way to liberate oneself from something then one can just as easily expect the ruling class capitalist to construct an identity wherein their 'oppression' by a socialist movement is defeated by 'transitioning' to another class. I'm sure, just like 'trans women', you could foreseeably expect the capitalist to keep his wealth (somewhat of a 'feminine penis', as contradictory as a capitalist prole keeping his billions).
ITT poster post their most anecdotal of evidence and pass it of as gospel from the marxian scriptures. Just remember when the revolution happens we will have muscular trans women fighting on our side ready to stomp down any limpwristed capitalist /liberal shrill shill
You cannot be Marxist and anti-racist. You cannot be Marxist and homosexual or even tolerate homosexuality. You cannot be a Marxist and not want to have only as racially healthy children as possible. You cannot be a Marxist and believe in "free love". You cannot be a Marxist and at the same time be what Christians call a "humanist".
Trans, cis, as long as they have huge tits amirite fellas?
OK kid
trans women are not women, they're mutilated abominations
My point though is that a lot of these trans women act like men in many recognizable ways, and it's rare that I would mistake their behavior for what I would expect is normal for typical women. It's not me making some statement about biological essentialism, but a frank assessment of how a lot of these trans women actually act. I don't really care what they do, but it's stretching credulity to pretend that they're just like other women generally, and I notice a difference with trans women who make a tougher effort to pass than some guys that just go deep into the fringest internet culture they can find.
So if a trans woman made a deep effort to pass, both physically and behaviorally, then they would women?
2/10 I replied
They would not be functionally women in many key ways, unless they were biologically altered to a degree currently not possible. If it were possible to change ones DNA and create an artificial womb, then yes, it would be possible to turn a man into a woman. There would be no good reason why such a thing would be necessary, but it would be possible and it would be valid. They still would have had the socialization of a male and probably act in a distinctively masculine fashion. And that really gets into the whole futility of the ideal man/woman and the idealism inherent in trans ideology, and why it's such a silly notion.
That a lot of these trans women are obviously men and act like obvious men, with male patterns of behavior, just drives home the reality that their transition is towards some imagined role of a pretty princess or something silly, rather than anything like actual dysphoria, and that dysphoria only exists because we have some fucked up notions of what people are supposed to be and some fucked up ideologies. It's not easy to train every trans-identifying person in the finer details of philosophy so that they can come to this conclusion for themselves, though, and they're in a sea of bullshit pushing them towards all manner of sexual vices so I don't think therapy is terribly helpful here. It's a shit situation all around and I feel sad for these men who get caught up in the ideology and the echo chamber.
That's a completely American thing, there are probably less transwomen in European ML parties compared to the population average - which is partly because some of these parties have been involved with iRL Cold War politics and the Eastern Bloc states, while mostly allowing gender reassignment and gay marriage, weren't particularly fond of the flamboyant culture many trans people engage in, it was seen as a sign of Western subversion like Punk music.
On the other hand, you are likely to see transwomen in liberal or even conservative spaces in Europe.
While conservative gender essentialism is retarded, complete social constructivism is equally idiotic. Years of nonsense gender have tried to push this notion of "nature vs. nurture" which is a false dichotomy and terminally un-materialistic, the truth is more a unity of sex and gender in a reciprocal relationship just like the mind can't exist without the body.
I think you don't have to be a dick to trans people or mock them but you should compromise on an materialist outlook, and you can be an ally to trans people with admitting that sometimes their doctrine of gender constructivism goes to far and makes a mockery of the left.
nonsense gender studies*
Also, my final take is that if you criticize lipstick feminism, you must also criticize the ridiculous flamboyant and oversexualised milieu amongst trans people walk. All these lolicon posting tranny chaser ultraleftoids on Twitter deserve to be excluded from the left.
There's a difference between normative claims about biological sex and descriptive claims about how biological sexes operate and express themselves within societies (i.e. gender expression). However, I don't follow a nature vs. nurture outlook on biological sex until I can be convinced that you can be born a healthy male and undergo a successful surgery to transfer your biological sexual features to that of a healthy female. Anybody can become a woman, but you cannot nurture yourself to becoming a female if you understand what I mean. The concept of womanhood/manhood is a unity of sex and gender but when transsexuals say that they have transitioned their sex I can't be expected to take it seriously. I believe transgenders but not transexuals who believe, not just on an emotional or psychological level, they are actually males, not just men or masculine-presenting.
Gender isn't even real. There is no brain sex or mind sex. There are only sexed characteristics of the body and psychology which is informed by those sexed characteristics. The very concept of the feminine or masculine mind is at best a shorthand for discussing what is generally like to live as a male or female. There's no "female essence" or anything like that that needs to be upheld, or that is an essential ingredient of the mind, and there are quite a few people who just aren't that interested in their sex and don't make it the center of their being. The trans ideology relies in part on an obsessive attitude towards sex in the first place, otherwise I don't think most people would go through the expensive process of transition.
Trans folks are a couple percent of the population. Here in Belgium the government made a survey and about 3% of the population is trangender.
No.
thats false and a retarded sjw level take
There is a female essence of the body, though. The mind has a concept of what it is to be a woman, that's what I'm referring to. If that's meant to be divorced from any kind of biological reality of our bodies, then contradictions like 'feminine penis' are allowed to fly.
Women are only interest in things popular with men. If unattractive men are not doing something they don't want much to do with it.
Also leftism relies heavily are breaking societal norms and intellectual exploration. That is something men specialize in.
The trans is engaging in a self-evident absurdity, then. I don't know what you're trying to argue exactly. I said gender isn't real, not that sex isn't real. The assumption of gender as something separate from sexed characteristics is the reason why a contradiction like "feminine penis" can even form in the first place. Someone can create a definition of "woman" in their head that differs from the dictionary definition of woman, but a female body part is something that occurs in nature and would be what it is even if we didn't have a word for female. Inventing your own definitions for words doesn't make your delusions useful for a serious scientific inquiry or a discussion about biology. It just becomes nonsense and should be considered such.
The new "woke" trans narrative shares startling similarities to the conservitard habit of creating their own special definitions of words and falling back on their own personal truths, so they don't have to debate honestly and have their ideas exposed for the bullshit that they are. I have to think that a lot of the new trans narrative being plastered around the internet is precisely driven to distract people from what is really happening. There are even trans women (men) who are coming out and criticizing the new narrative for its obvious flaws, and they would be in a position to criticize the process since they're the ones who are actually going through this and know what it's like. Some of them, I imagine, are having regret but are too deep in, and it's hard to stop the process once it starts and the hormones have done their work.
I don't know why you make it seem like it's the transgender, lads fault.
The autism about femine energy you brought up, is something societal, and that's really something that fucks with somebodies head so much they inject titty making sauce to ease the pain of feeling like you dont belong, simply because you might not like "masculine", shit.
I unironically beleive we should revive the toga, and keep pants, entirley due to this. It's not gendered at all, and looks good no matter what.
No it doesn't, you are infantile, most of the respected black, female & queer (these not so much tbh) voices on the far left are consistently anti-idpol themselves because they understand full well how particularism can be manipulated as a barrier to class consciousness, universalism and solidarity among other things. You sound like you think Intersectionality is compatible with Marxism or even Anarchism (I rarely see the tension with Anarchism brought up, but it exists). In other words, you're a liberal.
Why would women want to be here when retarded "anti" idpol fags openly support the erasure of their spaces and rights. They're better off on Mums.net until the scum gets purged from this board.
Can I get a source on this fam, one of the few things I've seen that actively discusses how idpol is harmful to anarchism in media form.
Who does this who doesn't get argued against? If we allow nazis to act retarded around here so we can bully them and yet we're expected to deal with the anathema to our own politics instead of just banning them then why the fuck would I expect women to not have to do the same? I'll argue right alongside them, because my anti-idpol line includes opposition to misogyny.
Anti idpol also by definition means opposing racism, sexism, etc.
Even if you accept all the premises of Queer/Trans/Whatever theory and their conception of "womanhood", for a teleos that is so hyperindividualistic it certainly isn't capable of introspection or any semblance of dialectical thought whatsoever because it refuses to consider the totality of effects that a subject experiences within interaction between themselves, patriarchy & society as a whole through the lens of gender. The biggest sticking point with regards to this would be the "Socialization" problem, insofar that before one assumes a gender identity through "choice", they have already been inextricably linked to and transformed by the societal pressures of patriarchy from the perspective that was assigned to them; transitioning in this regard doesn't address this relationship and chooses to eschew it outright, instead arguing for fixed categories that can be adopted, despite the latent admission that choice is irrelevant. You can't expect to have any convincing argumetns when structures such as patriarchy only affect you when you want them to.
Opposing racism is anti-racism. Liberal idpol IS anti-racism, how is this still confusing for people.
I'm saying gender is as real as society's conception of it is real. Clearly we are referring to something when we say 'gender'. Whether or not it is 'biologically' real like sex is is not something I am contesting. IMO gender is a societal corollary for sex differences in a way such that one can manipulate things (i.e. transgenderism).
I agree that most of the transgenders are just deluded, but they are perfectly socialized in modern culture because it emboldens the narrative that because sex and gender are linked/connected, you can transcend them in order to transition as you please.
Except it’s retarded liberal anti racism that promotes individualistic racial pride and divisions rather than racial abolition and class solidarity. It tells blacks that they are special and different and that they should go out and see black panther and buy things marketed towards strong black women (TM). It just cultivates racial groups as a demographic to be marketed to, and at most incorporated into the bourgeoisie. It doesn’t teach oppressed races that they have common cause with the workers of the oppressing race, and that the bourgeoisie of the oppressed race are also their enemies. It doesn’t aim to undermine race as a concept, instead it entrenches it for the purposes of marketing and division. Liberal anti-racism calls on people to celebrate their blackness, while socialist anti racism calls for the abolition of blackness and whiteness.
Braindead ahistorical take.
Don't refute people by using sage as a downvote, this isn't reddit, engage with their posts and explain why you think they're retarded.
Don't refute people by talking about muh rebbit when you don't understand why someone would sage an obvious wedge thread
Lmao nice try, but I wasn't trying to refute anything, and again you're using sage as a downvote whilst implying you were using it properly by falling back on a position that you never elucidated. Grow up you fucking child.
I consider myself to be an anti-idpol guy, and I would never say this about any other group. Most cis women tend to be white women. I have never in my life met a cis white woman who is unwilling to turn class traitor at the drop of a hat. I don't think they're capable of class consciousness, or at least they have no place in a vanguard. They should probably be forcibly excluded from politics until they're convinced we're the winning team.
lmfao
Again, I hate to essentialize people here, but white women are natural born class traitors, and they should be viewed with suspicion. The plural of anecdote IS data after all
If you have a problem with my posting, I couldn't really care less.
Your shitposting isn't even worth the three words I gave it.
being anti idpol is ok and great but there is a real problem in the radical left where braindead white men think we don't have to discuss racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc because "in a socialist society none of those will be real problems" or "we should focus on the class war" as if the other branches of oppression aren't actively harming people's lives (most of which are part of the working class) and we just give them a rain check in favor of solely focusing on the class issue.
not saying this is everyone but it is very much a real problem.
the absolute state of brocialism
I would be pissed too if men started reinforcing female stereotypes that I had been fighting against and coopting my gender. Especially if they went so far as to declare adhering to those stereotypes and externally imposed gender roles is what makes someone a woman. Why that would get me down right peeved.
youtube.com
I mean that's pretty much why so many actually IRL socialist groups spend so much time on it. They regularly get these guys cycling through who think every word they say is some profound insight.
Wow you're cool, you're so above it all and anyone who calls you out for your bullshit is shitposting. You do realise I'm not the fucking Catposter right? Lmao resorting to accusations of samefaggotry. Absolutely precious.
There are liberal authors who are anti-socialists who argue for just that same point. This is a liberal talking point if you aren't aware.
Troon supporting faggots do.
I didn't know nazis were allowed here. Where did you take that from?
This is the correct take, but brainlets can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That's why they say the dumb shit you pointed out. It's important to remember these guys aren't masters of theory. They're a bunch of retards who brag about econophysics without knowing what a partition function is and think they'll magically turn into libs if they read Adorno.
I'm just pretending to be retarded ;)
That took you a long time to clear your local storage. Are you also a tech illiterate as well as historical illiterate?
While that may indeed be a problem, it's nowhere near as much of a problem as dumbass intersectionalist liberals posing as socialists who refuse to see class as the medium through which all other forms of oppression operate, engage in identitarian wrecking, and are a generally a nuisance and a hindrance to the movement.
As a general rule people aren't going to play nice with you if you cast them as the enemy. Woke twitter levels of misandry and shit like that actively aids the bourgeoisie by driving well meaning people away. WIth friends like these who the hell need cointelpro.
This is good satire but the problem is that retarded intersectionalists will take it at face value so if you were just hoping to point out the hypocrisy in some of the suppoed anti-idpol posters on this board, you've actually likely just added fuel to the fire. If you're trolling then it's too transparent.
Reactionaries have always been allowed here as long as they're not actively being disruptive through sliding, trolling etc. I don't have a problem with it for multiple tactical reasons (know your enemy, strengthen your arguments, principles of freedom etc) and I'll even be civil to them. This has been well established for years. Not sure what you mean by troon supporting faggots.
Lmao you're going all in huh
I'm gonna say a mixture of practical political need, disproportionate tendency to be online, radical social outlooks increasing the ease of developing radical economic outlooks, and the lack of other sufficiently welcoming places until highly recently.
i get the impression cis women have the most opportunity for advancement within those kinds of organisations.
cis women's healthcare needs are more easy to fit into a framework for capitalist efficiency. that's not to impute bad faith, or imply those needs should be ignored, however. for example, restricting reproductive rights is inherently inefficient to maximising labour force productivity. independent of any moral question, it's bad business.
in general this can be true of a lot of women's issues. without being dismissive or negative, there's an inherent logic to being liberal as a woman because there are still generally material gains on offer for yourself in doing so and they seem far more plausible and likely than the kind of revolutionary change that would be needed to bring about so much as universal healthcare in the USA.
that level of essentialism is pointless though
ultimately all it takes to validate something as part of a social category is for people to accept that it as that thing.
i mean here's something to dwell on: what does it take to make someone an american? how about english? irish? zimbabwean? japanese? venezuelan? australian? russian? emirati? many of the simple answers fall short because there's something we struggle to capture in each case. plausibly, an englishman can become an american - but can he ever become japanese? that's not a legal question - the legal answer is yes. the social answer is somewhat more murky and open to change over time.
ultimately if you want to abolish nationality you're gonna have to get people to realise how strange and weird it is that someone with english parents who has never set foot in england will be recognised as english, but someone who was born in england may not be recognised as "really" english, only "British". The same is broadly, by analogy, true of the whole concept of gender.
'feminine penis' doesn't even come from trans* in and of itself, it's more of a dickgirl fetishist thing. in-fact, it's the exact proof that such an understanding is socially constructed within a given community. on one board traps aren't gay, on another they are. on one board, the penis is feminine, on another it is an inherent contradiction. taping down iron diktats on this kind of thing is as pointless and pedantic as crying about they in the singular.
most people don't do this though. language isn't handed down from on-high by scientists. until you can tell me scientifically whether a hotdog is a sandwich, we have no need for scientific definitions of daily-life concepts.
But then why are there so many cis white men?
Oh fuck off. I'm talking about not sowing divisions within the working class movement. Not screeching about "muh SJWs". If you feel like hanging out with liberal wreckers, be my guest.
Gender is a social conception of what the society thinks of biological sexual expression within that society. But that doesn't mean what it is attempting to capture is as socially malleable. That there is a contradictory concept or disagreement about traps being gay doesn't change the fact that inverting your penis and wearing a dress doesn't change your biological sex: it changes what people call you due to social pressure and how your gender identity is perceived. Until doing that gives you periods then I will continue to believe as I do.
Maybe but they aren’t the dominant voice in liberal anti racist discourse. If you tried telling some tumblrinas that blackness needs to be abolished they would flip their shit and call you a racist.
Yeah, this pretty much perfectly captures my view. Trans ideology is inherently idealist, and incompatible with a materialist analysis of gender required for the emancipation of women.
I'm not talking about some piss-stained tumblrinas, what about Dr. Robin DiAngelo. Some academic, intellectual type talking about white fragility and doing away with whiteness. This anti-racism you are talking about might as well be from a chapter of one of her books. This idpol is just smuggling in one form for another.
You don't know what idealism is, apparently
...
That isn't what trans people, modern science, or trans healthcare professionals believe.
Is what it's attempting to capture meaningful in context though?
Ultimately, we can re-arrange all of our concepts and contexts as much as we like to attain desirable social outcomes, theoretically. I mean let's jump ahead to
So you're saying menopausal women aren't? Sure. (I'm here all night!) Intuitively, instinctively, we both know that's nonsense. You're just saying that as a way of justifying a categorisation system that involves minimal modification of the status quo, for now.
i re-emphasise the analogy to nationality. the underlying material realities have surprisingly little relevance to the categorisation at hand when you dwell on it appropriately. the categories at play have relevance and meaning only because people believe in them.
Something could be meaningful and not as malleable as one would think. It might be meaningful in this context, but that doesn't make it malleable.
That's fair. How's about I refine what I mean. Until those women are females in the sense that they naturally produce (or have the capacity to produce, barring dilapidation with age or physical defects), with the faculties they have been born with, ova which are capable of receiving sperm to produce a fertilized egg, then I will continue to believe what I do.
Spare me to conjecture as to what my motivations are. What matters is what was said.
This is trivially true. Using that reasoning, anybody with enough muscle and manpower behind their claims is, ultimately, true in the most meaningful form. If I can kill every other mouth who disagrees with me (the body that the mouth is attached to), then nothing else matters. The more people who believe that, the more 'true' it is.
I'm not saying what I say because I am paid for it, my motivations are meaningless conjecture because we are both anonymous.
I really want to like you socdem poster, because I actually agree with you a lot of the time but you have this habit of really condescendingly presupposing what other people are arguing without ever fully explaining the context behind your line of thought. I'm sure you aren't doing it out of a desire to be dishonest, and at worst are employing it as a rhetorical technique within the realm of "debate", but that really doesn't mesh well with this attitude of the pragmatic libertine (I'm sure this pisses some people off because of the flag as well) that you sometimes fall back on in order to argue, as if the exploration of some meandering towards truth is somehow worthy of derision. This is the spirit of debate in an abstract sense, yet you seem to take issue with that and yet have no problem utilizing the tools of formal debate to undermine people. Idk if it's a conscious thing but you have this way of policing discourse that is rather stifling and in the same way that fascists use the tools of their opponents against them when it suits them, and yet discard them just as easily once they have obtained the upper hand, there is something contemptable about it.
Polite sage for off-topic, because this is just a poorly cobbled together musing and tbh I'm not 100% certain you're the socdem poster I'm thinking of, you just sound very similar.
Trannies adhere to leftist ideology because today’s liberals hate women and will defend to the death a trannies right to self-delusion. Most are autogynephillic anyway. The term “cis woman” makes me nauseas. Text books now use terms like “pregnant person”. I don’t want to be around people trying to erase my biology. That’s why I’ll always be loyal to the far right. Say what you want, they care a lot more about women than liberals do.
Wait, assuming you're not shitposting, please tell me exactly how the far right cares about women, and what's more, why you are framing a false dichotomy in political support between Liberalism and Fascism as if those are the only 2 options. On what grounds have you eliminated Communism? Call it a sneaking suspicion, but I'm thinking you might not be a woman after all
I mean at least the far right believes women exist and is more than a feeling? But they tie that into women being inherently inferior to men.
Radfem is a left-wing philosophy at least. Libfem is misogynistic as fuck though.
I seriously doubt this is true. Well, it may be true in a hyper-idealised context but you're not going to meet someone and scan them over with your ovary detector. That is what is interesting. Hypothetically you could meet a trans-woman, instinctively categorise her as a woman, later discover that she is trans and re-categorise her as "not really a woman" despite there being no practical need or benefit from doing so.
Only if you promise to be more reflexive in future.
Your motivations are more interesting than you suspect. Why do you believe what you believe, and why do you feel the need to share it? You could equally turn the question on me: In this instance I think I'm posting primarily to organise my own thoughts, perhaps earlier on with the intention of getting into an easy argument with some of the largely-now-departed "anti-idpol" idpol types.
tbh i think most of those things are inherent tendencies brought on by the imageboard format itself. especially presupposing what people are saying. that's something that works sufficiently often to be valuable, and even if you're wrong it's better to just assume and get a clarification later than to double the length of your post with "well if X then Y, if Z then A, or if B then C…", especially if stating something in one of the incorrectly assumed cases that was stated in good faith is going to open up more avenues for the other poster to make an uninteresting or tedious reply.
i could do with some clarification on
though. i'm not sure if it's getting at some wider tendency, or specifically at the tendency to merge jokes with arguments.
mutual sage for potential narcissism.
That's not a statement of truth, though. It's not like I'm saying 'the sun will rise tomorrow' or something like that. I'm just using the definition of a female and saying until trans females satisfy it, they are just women. The difference between female and women being the one I highlighted above. I'm not saying trans women aren't women: I'm saying it doesn't mean anything to be a woman beyond social conceptions of womanhood. It's all malleable. What isn't malleable is being a female because I can't transition into one.
That's for my shrink to know.
Yeah I would agree that a lot of it is structural and arises out of the format of not only imageboards, but on various other platforms for reasons that are both related to the status of claims that aren't attached to an identifiable subject or entity and many other things.
I think there's a lot to unpack here. What I would say is that making assumptions about the nature of your opponent's claims or arguments actually has a much more pernicious side effect when you combine it with the inability to track positions across a time axis. Essentially, it reframes the debate in a way that tries to force your opponent not to argue their own points or contend yours, but for them to have to derail into first refuting these false points, which gives you more time and an ability to control the field of debate. I think at the point where they take the sensible position of just saying "that's not what I'm trying to argue" you have a tendency to flippantly then proceed to make jokes that has a similar effect as intentionally gaslighting them. It also makes people think that you believe your time to be more valuable than theirs which undermines their perception of your honesty. I also think that it doesn't really do you any favours because really it just extends the debate and whilst some people might not pick up on it, oftentimes those that you could have a productive argument with might view you as a sophist.
CONT.
I don’t feel inferior as a woman. There’s definitely misogynists within fascism, like there is with any ideology. I don’t like the way today’s liberals refuse to acknowledge the differences between men and women. I celebrate the differences and feel fascism recognizes these differences. Why is it out of the question that some women want men to lead and be head of the household? I feel like I can’t win. Libfems would shame me for wanting to be a stay at home mum. I don’t like what libfems or liberals in general represent at all. I don’t feel valued but I do within fascism. I feel protected and I don’t want to feel like there’s something wrong with me. I can’t help it if extreme leftism always seems to be linked to Marxism. The issue with trans people is that you can’t live your life as a man and then suddenly know what it’s like to be a female. Growing up with innately female insecurities, having periods, pregnancy etc. I’ll never know what it’s like to be a man but appreciate them and want that in return. I can’t believe women are having to fight for the right to own our own struggles and accomplishments.
That only counts as race abolitionism if she also advocates doing away with blackness and race as a concept altogether, which is something that I’d doubt coming from a liberal academic.
I don't mean to single you out, although at this point I might as well just accept that I have done that, and I apologize if it's unfair. What I'm getting at with
Shut the fuck up, incubator.