Hi TERF simps!
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
They would not be hated by the left if they were.
Correct.
I'm not going to assist in the suppression of valuable allies in the fight against the established order, because some guy let himself be bullied by women. I can't think of anything dumber.
It is? Can you back this up?
You solve this by getting allies against the established order, not by going down a purity spiral.
Left-wing purity spirals are no concern of mine. Let them fight. I refuse to side with people who hate me just because they also hate troons, and the fact that you are so willing to do so makes me question your sanity.
These same women were the most enthusiastic proponents of the same hate speech policies that are now being used to silence them, and they still advocate for using those same policies to silence their critics, even as they insist they should be exempted.
So men have all the agency and women have none. What a feminist way of thinking.
Would you also like evidence that rain is wet? I'm not going to be dragged into semantic arguments because you're too afraid of women's disapproval to acknowledge the obvious.
These "allies" will turn on you and gut you as soon as it's convenient for them. The only thing that all feminists have in common is their hatred of you. Keeping them out is not a purity spiral: it's the only way to prevent all of the progress we have made against the woke crusade from being undermined and destroyed.
If not being addicted to losing and surrendering makes you question someone's sanity, I'll be glad for you to do that.
It's not that simple. Anyone who is the target of such laws will become more sympathetic to free speech concerns.
No... I said the same thing to women who were crying about words. But now you are the one crying about words, and suggesting counterproductive courses of action in response to mere words!
LOL! Yeah, I'm terrified of women's disapproval. What a cleverly roundabout way of saying that you do not have evidence for your claim. If it's this "hatred for men" that you keep complaining about that is causing men to go troon, it would mean that there is vastly greater hatred for women, and also increasing hatred for women, because the number of females going troon is now much higher.
But I suspect that this is one of the rare instances where you as an otherwise sensible human being, are not amenable to reason. This is just raw emotion. You don't like people hating on men. Fine. But it doesn't really matter what these yapping dogs bark out.
Is that how you characterize refusing to suck up to the same women who've spent decades taking every opportunity to denigrate, demonize and marginalize you just for being male. I hate to break it to you, but you're in an abusive relationship, and you're the victim. You keep letting these women piss all over you, and you keep gping back to them and running interference for them because you're afraid of what will happen if you cut the cord.
And here we come to the crux of our disagreement. You seem to forget that TERFs are leftists. The only thing that matters to leftists is power. They have absolutely no regard for matters of principle, or for logical consistency in their arguments.
They will (and do) argue that these policies should be used to silence you, but not to silence them, and when you point out to them that that doesn't make sense, they will either come up with some half-baked explanation for what makes them different, or they will simply shrug and admit they don't care that it doesn't make sense.
What evidence do you have to support your expectation that these women will suddenly start behaving like anything other than the power-mad man-hating leftists that they are just because you were nice to them?
I don't have evidence for my claim that feminists have infected every institution in our society with man-hatred? My evidence is the school curricula that teach boys that they are responsible for every war that has occurred in all of history, even though they weren't born yet, because they are male. My evidence is the policy of assumed guilt by which boys and young men from middle school through university are treated like potential rapists and profiled as such regardless of their actions. My evidence is the gender quotas in every major workplace, public and private, that promote women over men who are more qualified and more deserving, simply because they're not women. Mu evidence is the doctrine of "Toxic masculinity" which permeates every classroom, workplace and entertainment medium, dedicated to teaching men to hate themselves for being men. My evidence is the practice or accepting, without evidence, every false claim of harassment or sexual assault made by a woman against a man, regardless of exhonerating evidence, which has condemned countless men over the past several decades to unjust incarceration and the ruin of their lives and reputations because our entire society has blindly accepted the radical feminist doctrine that women can do no wrong and that men are born wrong.
Is it so hard to believe that men raised in that environment might be so deeply traumatized by it that they'll do anything to try and escape it? Is it so hard to believe that a man might choose to try and become a woman so that he can get the promotion at work that he knows he deserves, or so that his peers might look at him and see something other than "toxic privilege?"
You boil all of this malice, backed by institutional power, down to "mean words," and you tell me that I'm the one being unreasonable?
You are the one with the blind spot. You are simping for women who view you as less than a cockroach, and who would destroy your life as soon as look at you, simply because you have a Y chromosome.
They weren't even around. But if they were, and did exactly as you allege, I wouldn't care. I only care about whether they are useful at this very moment. And yes, they are very useful at this moment.
You have some strange ideas about what is going on.
Right, which is why my argument was nothing about principles. I just pointed out that them being targeted by anti-free speech laws will make them more skeptical of such laws in general, for simple reasons of self-preservation. It's always the comfortable people who are in power who advocate for anti-free speech, never those who have even a distant memory of being repressed by them.
I guess you can answer any question if you cut out the part where it said what the question was. It was your claim that it is "man-hatred" by feminists that is driving transgenderism, for which you did not present a shred of evidence while pretending that it is self-evident.
Which ones? I don't remember that. I'm not your victim, either.
Not Joe Biden.
Supposing that everything you allege is true, and it's partly true, in no way establishes the causal link between this and men going troon. You would have to do the hard work of actually proving that if you wanted to make the claim. And you'd have your work cut out for you, because you would have to make that argument while also explaining away the fact that so many more girls go transgender than boys and men, even though you claim that they are unconscionably 'privileged'.
You kept citing mean words though. Now you actually come up with some substance, which falls far short of demonstrating your initial claims.
I don't care even if they would, and it would end badly for them if they tried. I care about the fact that they are useful. How can you be familiar with the notion of a political coalition?
Well said.