1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +1 / -0

Old women are jealous of young women's youthfulness and beauty.

Most of them aren't old. You even have OnlyFans thot in comments who makes money from exploiting men (and herself) saying this is bad lol.

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +1 / -0

Since neither of those articles mention that the eunuchs became eunuchs because they wanted

The last screenshot mentions autocastration.

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +1 / -0

There's a summary of The Daily Beast article in this thread:

https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/16a9v01Eiv/the-daily-beast-eliza-bleus-own-/c/

The only thing that's left out is that she reported & censored people like Brittany Venti, The Quartering, and a bunch of other people over posting screen shots of her from a public rap video that's been up for 6 years on YT, which she also reported later and brought it down.

3
ThatsAlright 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's interesting. For me, it just seems like rad lib ideology - muh power imbalance bs, but they apply that (like with everything else) only to others.

I'm more than happy to go along with this tbh.

11
ThatsAlright 11 points ago +11 / -0

https://nitter.1d4.us/Cooperstreaming/status/1622827105808683008

It's usually the same people who think drawn art of fictional characters that's sexy = bad, but transing kids = good.

As always, most of it goes back to rad lib ideology.

3
ThatsAlright 3 points ago +3 / -0

Tim Pool accuses people in his chat & super chat of being bots, working for a PR firm to promote Eliza Bleu, a person "no one ever heard of," despite being twice on his show

https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/16aA4NLRzw/tim-pool-accuses-people-in-his-c/c/

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +2 / -1

It's about pre-internet, pre (largely) phone phase of society.

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nah, I think they met each other more recently. But Cassandra does have nsfw stuff out there (she got Kathy Zhu banned in fact over posting it), and some other stuff that seems to be from a pro shoot.

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +1 / -0

I was referring to recent growth which is largely ideological, not general cross-dressers who've been around since basically forever.

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +1 / -0

Whether or not transness existed historically isn't dependent on whether or not a concept such as transness existed at the time to describe such phenomenon. If you can't connect people who were or chose to be castrated because they didn't want to be male, with modern day people who choose to undergo hrt, socially transition, and/or castrate themselves because they don't want to be male, is an entirely your issue, and that is the last I'll say on the matter.

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +1 / -0

the conception of it which changed over time.

if you can't connect the two, that's not my issue.

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who said it is? It's a book documenting historical examples relevant to the subject & the conception of it which changed over time.

2
ThatsAlright 2 points ago +2 / -0

"The rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization is at least 3 times higher for females (13.7%) than males (4.2%)" - Bureau of Justice

Which has nothing to do with trans people.

4
ThatsAlright 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yeah, but how many were there before, and how many after?

Pretty sure most of it started occurring post 2013/14. I wouldn't say that internet is the primary cause, as much education.

Though a lot of older people also get obsessed with shemale and sissy porn and then want to 'become' women.

You just need to browse flickr.

-1
ThatsAlright -1 points ago +1 / -2

There is no such thing as "hermaphrodites" in the human race, there is not a single case documented where an individual had both functioning gametes, ever.

As I've said:

No true hermaphrodties (who have both fully functioning sex organs) exist, it's why I still consider them male/female as opposed to both.

There are people with congenital malformations, various chromosome defects and co, but hermaphrodites? No.

"Hermaphrodites" encompasses all of it, it's a term that predates and was replaced with "intersex," but I prefer the former hence why I use it.

but making sex identification purely a matter of opinion, by law.

i don't think that's the primary issue, but one of issues for sure.

What's the point of gender classifications then? I don't care if you don a skirt and a mustache at the same time and you think you are a woman, it's purely your opinion and it's as valid as mine. However the sex of an individual is data that is not a matter of opinion.

The issue is that people disagree when it comes to sex as well, including people who aren't the most radical liberals that exist, in pursuit of liberal individualism and making everything a matter of choice.

The idea of gender itself is pretty much useless. What purpose does it serve?

The purpose of gender to begin with was to separate neurological and behavioral differences from sex, blame them on society, and in turn justify doing away with it/shaping people according to ideology.

In a surprising turn of event, "progressives" have re-invented religious blasphemy.

Yes? I've been arguing for a while that -isms are a form of liberal heresies, primarily racism and sexism, but that also applies to transphobia.

7
ThatsAlright 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yeah, there'll apparently be more articles. I read some of it, and kinda got bored honestly. The Daily Beast did a good job, and that's kinda shocking.

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yeah, back when I was curious about it and gender ideology, queer theory, etc.

I know hermaphrodites have both sex organs.

In theory, however, no true hermaphrodties (who have both fully functioning sex organs) exist, it's why I still consider them male/female as opposed to both.

I’d put that in a different category than someone who believes they are something else or it’s a mental issue.

Hermaphroditism is basically caused due to hormones. I don't think it's particularly unlikely that same hormones which cause that can cause shape one's center of identity (that is, how one perceives themselves) in a different way than it should. We already know that various other things can cause identity issues, E.G., bpd (personality disorder), being of mixed race (and you can find more than few examples of it, including people who've openly talked about issues they have w/o being particularly political), and so forth.

But I wouldn’t date a “trans woman” because they aren’t real women

That's fair tbh, that's mostly coming from rad lib ideology nowadays, where they want to assert that one's personal preferences are "problematic." it's not solely confided to it, though, as I've mentioned before elsewhere, Ashley Goldenberg (a jewish woman) got harassed for days by a "conservative" female Canadian for wanting to date jews only.

But I still stick with the fact that if a man believes he is a woman then there is some mental imbalance.

I wouldn't say so, but it depends. I kinda see where the issue might be, basically you see being a woman/man as something that's unattainable for a person that's born w/ a different sex, while they see it differently; I don't think the difference in perception constitutes a mental illness in itself, but it can sometime. In the same way, I see individualism as a form of identity, one that's primarily ideological and thus unattainable, but I don't think that people who believe it are mentally ill, as much they are ideological.

If, for example - and I've come across a person that once did so - a person born as a man decided to undertake hormones, social transition, and/or surgery to make themselves appear more as a woman, while acknowledging that they aren't a woman but a biological man, would you reckon that's a mental illness? Imo, it's mostly a form of trans-humanism at that point, and there's certainly more than few that have done it. Many trans-woman on 'right" don't really believe they are women or biological women for that matter.

-7
ThatsAlright -7 points ago +2 / -9

Those look to be about eunuchs and not trans.

You're confusing treatment for identity. Treatment can vary from place to place and time to time, using hrt/surgeries/etc to transition is fairly recent, it basically started from previous century. But the people undergoing it have been around since basically forever. It's mostly a question of why that remains unanswered, and there's more than few explanations for it.

1
ThatsAlright 1 point ago +1 / -0

I've noticed you do, haha.

But given the fact that wokeness is now pushed and imposed, you can't say that anyone who adheres to liberalism as it used to be is a 'shitlib'.

If you look through posts where I've described someone as a liberal, majority of the times I don't use such term. However, I consider it fitting given the subject, the post, and what I've come across from the person before. Though we probably don't share the same view in regards to the term itself.

But what is illiberalism? Does it describe a specific thing, or rather a whole range of things that are not liberalism?

It's rejection/opposition of liberal values, it can describe anything for sure, even things that may seem to share commonalities with liberalism without utilizing liberal values and approaches.

Yes, but surely you don't, and it sounded like you did.

You asked what I define "liberal" as when utilizing the term to describe people, hence I provided the most common (albeit not complete) list of values/ideals associated with it.

I believe in them in that they would be good things. It's just that we don't have them.

That's fair, I can't say I do anymore. There was a point where I did, but over time I realized that even if they could exist, the approach isn't really good, especially since most of it is centered on individualism, and I don't see individuals as being the basic unit of society as much as family.

Don't let other people on this sub hear you say that. I'm the only one here who might agree with you based on my own personal experience, and that's because I'm from the Middle East and it's not as passe there as here.

It's alright. I've cited Marx, I think Gramsci? And few others more than few times, I don't mind. Marx himself was critical of individualism like conservatives used to be, critical of human rights, equality, etc, all of which I find beneficial even if I don't agree with everything. Though one of best critiques of immigration I came across once came from someone applying marxist critique to it, which itself is basically echoed (albeit not directly, but in his critique of cities) in Spengler's writings.

-4
ThatsAlright -4 points ago +2 / -6

My views on it have changed over time, and I've become mostly agnostic about it. I don't think there's enough research about it, and it's doubtful if we'll find out the cause any time soon, especially as we can't even understand other issues (depression, etc.

A trans person is essentially someone who believes they are what they are not.

There are two distinct conceptions of it. One where, in theory, it's no different than hermaphrodites - that is, a result of hormonal influence on the brain instead of sex during the development. It's certainly possible in theory, especially as development of the brain occurs at a different point than development of sexual characteristics.

Second conception of it is about trans as an umbrella term, disconnected from biology/dysphoria (not necessarily completely, but some might argue as such), where anyone who doesn't identify with gender assigned at birth (which is deemed wholly social, as opposed to gender identity) would fall under it. So a person can be a non-binary trans.

The first conception also brings into question what a person is, that is if body one possesses determines who they are, if their brain does so (identity), or if it's combination of both. I lean towards the last quite a bit. The second is primarily about social role, which shouldn't be ignored.

Ultimately, it depends on how one sees what women/men are, how one sees the notion of sex dysphoria, transness, hermaphrodites, etc. Trans-women/men is probably the best descriptor, as it signifies biological (bodily) reality, and identity + surgical/hormonal/social attempts at transition at the same time, without being deemed a woman/man specifically, basically a separate, identity-led, socially/medically-shaped category, in the same way the term "eunuch" was created to describe people who were castrated or chose to be castrated.

There's also another conception, that is as a form of autogynephilia, but I don't think it'd change much except potentially make it so it's not a matter of sex dysphoria as much a matter of trans-humanism and paraphilia.

So there have always been people with all sorts of mental issues. In her old age my grandmother had all sorts of mental issues. We never affirmed them of course.

For what it's worth, what's deemed mental illness is sex dysphoria, that is distress/etc caused by one's identity not being in line with one's sex, not the belief that one is a woman/man.

5
ThatsAlright 5 points ago +5 / -0

Did you know they are trying to make 'eunuch' into a gender identity?

Yeah, I posted about it recently: https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/15JnBNqI30/eunuch-is-a-gender-says-prominen/c/

Just how much longer can a 'civilization' based on such sickness survive?

Way longer than it should, especially with rise of automation.

view more: Next ›