Hi TERF simps!
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
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?
The coalition you're proposing is the same arrangement as the scorpion crossing the river on the back of a frog. The TERFs will sink you both, because what's in their nature trumps what's in their best interests. They are not rational beings, and treating them like rational beings will not make them into such.
Please see above.
Once again, the causal link between the destruction of gender norms and the systematic eradication of masculinity as a concept and every positive association with it, and the countless men who seem to be increasingly trying to find an escape from their association with manhood and masculinity is plainly obvious. I invite you to provide an alternative explanation for the troon phenomenon that does as comprehensive a job of explaining the explosion of troonery that has occurred in tandem with the obliteration of traditional gender norms by the very feminists you currently ally yourself with.
Your attempt to defer this responsibility by pointing out the FtM phenomenon does not achieve this. The destruction of traditional gender norms goes both ways, and so do its consequences. These same feminists, with whom you ally yourself, are also responsible for convincing generations of young women and girls that they can be happy and fulfilled while rejecting the femininity that comes naturally to them. When this turns out not to be true, women turn out just as alienated and miserable as men have become because of this same malignant feminist propaganda, and many will react by doubling down on their rejection of traditional gender norms. Once again, the weakened state of these norms, resulting directly from the institutional war that has been waged on them at the feminists' behest, makes this easier for both sexes.
The radfems caused this problem.
On top of that, bringing up the FtM troons when challenged on your support for the TERFs is frankly disijgenuous. The primary focus of the TERFs, and certainly the exclusive focus of the tradcucks on the troon issue is on the MtF side, because of the fundamental, reactionary revulsion both groups share to men invading women's spaces.
I share that revulsion, although mine goes both ways, but I do find it curious that tradcucks only bring up FtM troons when trying to run interference for the role the feminists have played on creating this whole mess.
If they're not rational beings, as you assert, all the better to unleash them on the foe.
Even a dog will grow to hate an object with which you hit it. You do not need to be rational, you just need to be sentient. Even under your worst assumptions about GC, this is true and correct.
I'll remind you that I affirmed that this is in part caused by the destruction of gender norms. It's the rest of your explanation which I criticized as being without evidence and foundation.
But this refutes your own claim. If it goes both ways, and the FTT is far more common than MTT, then clearly your claim that it is due to "demonization of men" is inapplicable.
Yes, that is a valid criticism with which I agree. However, the mere fact that feminists have spent decades damaging and undermining society, does not mean that none of them can be useful today when battling even more cancerous feminists.
Obviously. You attack the enemy's weakest spots. And it's working. Public opinion is turning against troonery.
As does mine. If anything, I find FTT to be more repellent.
This is simple strategy. You cite the cases that are most likely to get people to turn against this absurd fad. "Mentally ill women with their breasts cut off entering men's locker rooms" isn't as viscerally appalling to most people as "men shoving their penises into the women's locker rooms".
My assertion is that feminist propaganda ---> destruction of gender norms --->troonery. You will not solve this problem by allying yourself with the fundamental cause of it, and you are shooting yourself in the foot by doing so. Public opinion may shift against troonery, but it will not die so long as we continue to allow radical feminists to spread their poison and undermine the inextricable link between biology and gender. By siding with them, you enable them to perpetuate their cancer, and by extension perpetuate troonery.
Well said.