Topic: Even the word 'too' is oppressive to fragile ciswomen.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw started this discussion 11 years ago #46,876
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 hours later[^] [v] #617,200
@OP
Not clicking that conservatard link. Cite a credible source.
Not clicking that conservatard link. Cite a credible source.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,201
@previous (B)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cameron-schaeffer/the-3-letter-word-that-cuts-women-down-every-day_b_8234202.html
Edit: and the about the author:
Cameron Schaeffer is a freshman at The University of Vermont and is from Philadelphia. She has a strong opinion on just about everything. Cameron is absorbed in her interests in social justice, feminism, pop culture, art, politics, conservation, and mozzarella sticks. She is currently working on developing her writing portfolio.
For a freshman in college her writing could be a lot worse.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cameron-schaeffer/the-3-letter-word-that-cuts-women-down-every-day_b_8234202.html
Edit: and the about the author:
Cameron Schaeffer is a freshman at The University of Vermont and is from Philadelphia. She has a strong opinion on just about everything. Cameron is absorbed in her interests in social justice, feminism, pop culture, art, politics, conservation, and mozzarella sticks. She is currently working on developing her writing portfolio.
For a freshman in college her writing could be a lot worse.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,203
@617,200 (B)
"active Democrat"
The fuck is that supposed to mean? All "Democrat" guarantees is that you aren't like Autphag. Still leaves a lot of room for most sorts of queerphobia, xenophobia, ableism, latent racism, imperialism, Zionism, Pax Americana shit, American exceptionalism, and capitalism apologism. Sure, the Republicans are deplorable, but that doesn't magically make the Democrats not unconscionably bad on many issues.
"active Democrat"
The fuck is that supposed to mean? All "Democrat" guarantees is that you aren't like Autphag. Still leaves a lot of room for most sorts of queerphobia, xenophobia, ableism, latent racism, imperialism, Zionism, Pax Americana shit, American exceptionalism, and capitalism apologism. Sure, the Republicans are deplorable, but that doesn't magically make the Democrats not unconscionably bad on many issues.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,205
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,206
Why are white ciswomen so fragile? Could it be that their excessive privileges in life have left them sensitive to the slightest, and often imaginary transgressions?
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,207
@617,205 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That's entirely obvious.
Means actually astonishingly little about one's political views, though, when both parties are just a bizarre mixture of liberalism and traditionalism. To be honest, I'm kinda wary of the politics of anyone who isn't disgusted by both of those parties (preferably being more so by the GOP — they're more proudly murderous and repressive).
That's entirely obvious.
Means actually astonishingly little about one's political views, though, when both parties are just a bizarre mixture of liberalism and traditionalism. To be honest, I'm kinda wary of the politics of anyone who isn't disgusted by both of those parties (preferably being more so by the GOP — they're more proudly murderous and repressive).
Anonymous D double-posted this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,208
@617,206 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
"privileges"
Yeah, fuck off. Your definition of privileges is probably, knowing the politics of places like that, anyone who isn't a white cis straight male.
"privileges"
Yeah, fuck off. Your definition of privileges is probably, knowing the politics of places like that, anyone who isn't a white cis straight male.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 46 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,210
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,211
@617,208 (D)
Please declare the terrible hardships you have faced as an individual, born in a first world nation, who was assigned as a white female at birth.
Please declare the terrible hardships you have faced as an individual, born in a first world nation, who was assigned as a white female at birth.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,212
Is this a joke article?
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,221
@617,210 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
@617,211 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
Men shouldn't comment on internalised misogyny, white people shouldn't comment on internalised racism, etcetera. You're still saying that privileged opinions matter more than marginalised ones when you pull that shit. What the fuck.
@617,211 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
Men shouldn't comment on internalised misogyny, white people shouldn't comment on internalised racism, etcetera. You're still saying that privileged opinions matter more than marginalised ones when you pull that shit. What the fuck.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,224
@617,212 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
> Is this a joke article?
> Huffington Post
Yes, although the people who put it out might not realize that.
> Is this a joke article?
> Huffington Post
Yes, although the people who put it out might not realize that.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,229
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,237
@previous (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
The people at the Huffington Post are not capable of embarrassment; they are only capable of feelings of outrage or suppressed delusions of racial or moral superiority.
The people at the Huffington Post are not capable of embarrassment; they are only capable of feelings of outrage or suppressed delusions of racial or moral superiority.
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,239
@617,201 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Not clicking that libtard link. Cite Reuters, AP or Nature. Thanks.
Not clicking that libtard link. Cite Reuters, AP or Nature. Thanks.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,244
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,248
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,249
@617,244 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
> This sjw doublespeak is turning everyone into weak willed autists. Goddamn
QFT
> This sjw doublespeak is turning everyone into weak willed autists. Goddamn
QFT
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 43 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,265
@617,221 (D)
1. I am not a man. I am a pansexual (except for ciswomen), non-transitioning, non-op genderqueer tomboy suffering from gender dysphoria.
2. Internalized misogyny as a term is just an excuse for women to not take responsibility for their own hate.
3. There is plenty of internalized racism within the white race.
4. You are an anonymous shitposter. You could be the whitest, manliest Swedish bodybuilder with 6 girlfriends for all I know.
1. I am not a man. I am a pansexual (except for ciswomen), non-transitioning, non-op genderqueer tomboy suffering from gender dysphoria.
2. Internalized misogyny as a term is just an excuse for women to not take responsibility for their own hate.
3. There is plenty of internalized racism within the white race.
4. You are an anonymous shitposter. You could be the whitest, manliest Swedish bodybuilder with 6 girlfriends for all I know.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,269
@617,244 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
It is good news for me. I work blue collar with plenty of white racist men so I am free from SJW mouthclose.
It is good news for me. I work blue collar with plenty of white racist men so I am free from SJW mouthclose.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,273
@617,265 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
Prejudice running contrary to an oppressive structure isn't as harmful on the societal scale, and generally doesn't compare even on the scale of individual aggressions and microaggressions.
Prejudice running contrary to an oppressive structure isn't as harmful on the societal scale, and generally doesn't compare even on the scale of individual aggressions and microaggressions.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,278
@617,269 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
Some girl at work used the term cis men to me, and I told her to never do it again.
Some girl at work used the term cis men to me, and I told her to never do it again.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,281
@617,273 (D)
Goddamn, that is fucking pathetic. And I have experienced many things that would qualify as microaggressions if I didn't appear to be a cis white male to colored people.
Goddamn, that is fucking pathetic. And I have experienced many things that would qualify as microaggressions if I didn't appear to be a cis white male to colored people.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 17 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,287
@previous (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
I don't feel qualified, as a man, to tell women what an appropriate response to systematic misogyny is - if someone's terrified of men, I don't think it's my place to "correct" them.
I don't feel qualified, as a man, to tell women what an appropriate response to systematic misogyny is - if someone's terrified of men, I don't think it's my place to "correct" them.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 56 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,305
@previous (D)
If someone is terrified of men, they have a reason. If that reason is "he used the word 'too'" you should run for the hills because that bitch is batshit.
If someone is terrified of men, they have a reason. If that reason is "he used the word 'too'" you should run for the hills because that bitch is batshit.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 11 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,520
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
And you're actively trying to push a "sex" (which, I hate to say it, is gendered to an astronomical degree) onto people who want nothing to do with your creepy essentialism, as a direct result of your cis-privilege. 11/10 on the hypocrisy.
And you're actively trying to push a "sex" (which, I hate to say it, is gendered to an astronomical degree) onto people who want nothing to do with your creepy essentialism, as a direct result of your cis-privilege. 11/10 on the hypocrisy.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,525
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,530
@previous (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
Sex is constructed in much the same way gender and race are. None of these things are "objective fact". :\
Sex is constructed in much the same way gender and race are. None of these things are "objective fact". :\
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,533
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,535
@previous (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
Not really, though. You only care about the moment of birth, which is hardly a 100% perfect representation of the reality of someone's life after birth.
You only care about a convenient frame of reference that you can use to exclude people from your club.
Not really, though. You only care about the moment of birth, which is hardly a 100% perfect representation of the reality of someone's life after birth.
You only care about a convenient frame of reference that you can use to exclude people from your club.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,536
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 1 second later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,537
From what I've seen, men are more of an issue, regardless of their bits — especially if their presentation is highly masculine, and even more so if they're also white.
Interesting thing to do: take a look at the statistics relating to how often trans women are sexually victimised. (It's more often, per capita, even more than the already sordid statistics for cis women.)
Interesting thing to do: take a look at the statistics relating to how often trans women are sexually victimised. (It's more often, per capita, even more than the already sordid statistics for cis women.)
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,538
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,541
@617,536 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
Let's take a look at where your definition disintegrates.
1. People with an XY karyotype and a large or total degree of androgen insensitivity. Born with an obvious vagina, assigned female, grows up to have a phenotype totally typical of a cis women, and, in most cases, is female. (When I use such adjectives, it is literally only referring to gender.)
2. People with karyotypes such as X, XXX, XXY, XYY, etcetera - lacking a Y, they will most often have a vagina, etcetera; having a Y, they will most often have a penis. Whether they have the gonads generally found with their genitalia or not is not guaranteed. XXY people, for example, are almost always assigned male, and generally end up being male. See, the interesting thing is, they aren't fucking XY. So there. Your definition of "sex" fails once again!
3. Mosaicism. There're more than a few people out there who have XX cells throughout most of their body, and XY in some, vice versa. Are you going to call their "sex" "female" if they're unambiguously male, have XY chromosomes throughout most of their body, and just happen to have a vagina and uterus?
4. Post-op trans people on HRT. ...just, let's be fucking serious here. If someone has a totally functioning penis, an unambiguously male phenotype and presentation, and a typically "male" concentration of testosterone in their blood, are they still under your bizarre definition of "female"?
5. The previous four points are essentially moot, because you have literally no reason to be policing the identities of other human beings via a bizarre amalgamation of at most incidentally related traits.
"Sex" is an entirely useless concept. Completely devoid of value. Chromosomes? Relevant at times. Phenotype? Often relevant. Hormones? Very relevant for medical stuff. Internal anatomy? Also really relevant for medical stuff. What bits someone has? Relevant when people want to penetrate each other. But this bizarre kitchen-sink jumble of fuck that gets blindly accepted as useful - without being understood by most people who engage it - called "sex"? It needs to be examined for what it is: a meaningless mess made to normalise merely statistically common configurations.
Let's take a look at where your definition disintegrates.
1. People with an XY karyotype and a large or total degree of androgen insensitivity. Born with an obvious vagina, assigned female, grows up to have a phenotype totally typical of a cis women, and, in most cases, is female. (When I use such adjectives, it is literally only referring to gender.)
2. People with karyotypes such as X, XXX, XXY, XYY, etcetera - lacking a Y, they will most often have a vagina, etcetera; having a Y, they will most often have a penis. Whether they have the gonads generally found with their genitalia or not is not guaranteed. XXY people, for example, are almost always assigned male, and generally end up being male. See, the interesting thing is, they aren't fucking XY. So there. Your definition of "sex" fails once again!
3. Mosaicism. There're more than a few people out there who have XX cells throughout most of their body, and XY in some, vice versa. Are you going to call their "sex" "female" if they're unambiguously male, have XY chromosomes throughout most of their body, and just happen to have a vagina and uterus?
4. Post-op trans people on HRT. ...just, let's be fucking serious here. If someone has a totally functioning penis, an unambiguously male phenotype and presentation, and a typically "male" concentration of testosterone in their blood, are they still under your bizarre definition of "female"?
5. The previous four points are essentially moot, because you have literally no reason to be policing the identities of other human beings via a bizarre amalgamation of at most incidentally related traits.
"Sex" is an entirely useless concept. Completely devoid of value. Chromosomes? Relevant at times. Phenotype? Often relevant. Hormones? Very relevant for medical stuff. Internal anatomy? Also really relevant for medical stuff. What bits someone has? Relevant when people want to penetrate each other. But this bizarre kitchen-sink jumble of fuck that gets blindly accepted as useful - without being understood by most people who engage it - called "sex"? It needs to be examined for what it is: a meaningless mess made to normalise merely statistically common configurations.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,542
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 53 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,543
@617,538 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
I'm just saying that your tone was making extremely suspicious of your underlying ideology.
I'm just saying that your tone was making extremely suspicious of your underlying ideology.
Anonymous D double-posted this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #617,544
@617,542 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
> Does dysphoria exist?
Erasing someone's identity due to antiquated narratives of what gender is isn't a valid personal choice.
Here's an experiment you can try at home - cut off your dick. You're still male, aren't you? Cut off your balls. You're still male, aren't you? Get a vagina added to yourself surgically. You're still male, aren't you? Get breast implants. You're still male, aren't you? "But chromosomes!", you say. Yes, and? There are cis women born with an X and a Y - insensitive to androgens, they are assigned female at birth, and, most often, grow up to be totally fine with their female assignment. There have been cases recorded of XY babies with penises having their genitalia surgically inverted and being assigned female due to their dick being tiny - and then, surprise surprise, growing up to be a trans man because they weren't suited towards their assigned gender!
What I'm saying is that you should not be enabling the "gender is biology" crowd. It's patently irresponsible, enormously problematic, and plain fucking wrong.
> Does dysphoria exist?
Erasing someone's identity due to antiquated narratives of what gender is isn't a valid personal choice.
Here's an experiment you can try at home - cut off your dick. You're still male, aren't you? Cut off your balls. You're still male, aren't you? Get a vagina added to yourself surgically. You're still male, aren't you? Get breast implants. You're still male, aren't you? "But chromosomes!", you say. Yes, and? There are cis women born with an X and a Y - insensitive to androgens, they are assigned female at birth, and, most often, grow up to be totally fine with their female assignment. There have been cases recorded of XY babies with penises having their genitalia surgically inverted and being assigned female due to their dick being tiny - and then, surprise surprise, growing up to be a trans man because they weren't suited towards their assigned gender!
What I'm saying is that you should not be enabling the "gender is biology" crowd. It's patently irresponsible, enormously problematic, and plain fucking wrong.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,545
@617,265 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
> 1. I am not a man. I am a pansexual (except for ciswomen), non-transitioning, non-op genderqueer tomboy suffering from gender dysphoria.
you kids these days sure do love your labels. this must be pushback from the previous generation's obsession with trying to get rid of labels altogether. that's all we heard about for years, "don't label people no one is a stereotype" blah blah blah. and now you young'uns love wearing who you are on your sleeve. pretty much to the point that you get mad if people don't acknowledge and validate what your sleeves say even if it's a bunch of confusing words that don't have any meaning outside of your little insular cliques.
anyway, we all look back on our youths with great embarrassment. y'all's is going to be special though. y'all have a special kind of regret coming, lol.
> 1. I am not a man. I am a pansexual (except for ciswomen), non-transitioning, non-op genderqueer tomboy suffering from gender dysphoria.
you kids these days sure do love your labels. this must be pushback from the previous generation's obsession with trying to get rid of labels altogether. that's all we heard about for years, "don't label people no one is a stereotype" blah blah blah. and now you young'uns love wearing who you are on your sleeve. pretty much to the point that you get mad if people don't acknowledge and validate what your sleeves say even if it's a bunch of confusing words that don't have any meaning outside of your little insular cliques.
anyway, we all look back on our youths with great embarrassment. y'all's is going to be special though. y'all have a special kind of regret coming, lol.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,546
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,547
@previous (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
Depends, I guess! It's a bit of a difficult thing to define — preference and fetish are distinct yet similar.
Depends, I guess! It's a bit of a difficult thing to define — preference and fetish are distinct yet similar.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,548
@previous (D)
too bad we can't see a person's motivations. we have to infer motives. murky business, that
too bad we can't see a person's motivations. we have to infer motives. murky business, that
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,551
@617,547 (D)
Seems as though straight, gay, trans, cis, man, woman, and dysphoria all mean nothing. No one is more oppressed, no one needs to be separated from the group.
Seems as though straight, gay, trans, cis, man, woman, and dysphoria all mean nothing. No one is more oppressed, no one needs to be separated from the group.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,554
@previous (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
You just went full reactionary.
I'm gay, but otherwise, there's a lot of critical analysis of my social context needed before I run my mouth on social issues.
See, everyone, you can avoid enabling or contributing to oppressive structures if you take an actual look at your sociological context and try to understand how that might relate to what you're saying. Don't use the fact that you get taken more seriously about things than the people who are actually getting shafted by them as a hammer with which to fuck the oppressed over more.
Basically, actively be a decent person. Don't do the neo-fascist reactionary thing and willfully double down on your shittiness when presented with uncomfortable rhetoric from the oppressed.
You just went full reactionary.
I'm gay, but otherwise, there's a lot of critical analysis of my social context needed before I run my mouth on social issues.
See, everyone, you can avoid enabling or contributing to oppressive structures if you take an actual look at your sociological context and try to understand how that might relate to what you're saying. Don't use the fact that you get taken more seriously about things than the people who are actually getting shafted by them as a hammer with which to fuck the oppressed over more.
Basically, actively be a decent person. Don't do the neo-fascist reactionary thing and willfully double down on your shittiness when presented with uncomfortable rhetoric from the oppressed.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,556
@previous (D)
wait, so everyone can avoid enabling or contributing to oppressive structures by changing their opinions? i don't go around interfering with people's lives and i don't care what people do as long as it doesn't directly interfere with my life. but i am entitled to my own opinion and whatever colored lenses i care to wear. telling people that are oppressive because their opinions are different than yours is pretty shitty and uncomfortable rhetoric if you ask me. you're not changing the world one internet argument at a time, bud.
and people can totally be actively decent and still be racist, or sexist, or homophobic. the neo-rectionary thing NOW is to insist that people can't hold an opinion counter to yours and not be "enabling oppression." it's just an opinion, dude. the opinion of one chick who is a nurse in florida. her opinion isn't oppressing anyone.
wait, so everyone can avoid enabling or contributing to oppressive structures by changing their opinions? i don't go around interfering with people's lives and i don't care what people do as long as it doesn't directly interfere with my life. but i am entitled to my own opinion and whatever colored lenses i care to wear. telling people that are oppressive because their opinions are different than yours is pretty shitty and uncomfortable rhetoric if you ask me. you're not changing the world one internet argument at a time, bud.
and people can totally be actively decent and still be racist, or sexist, or homophobic. the neo-rectionary thing NOW is to insist that people can't hold an opinion counter to yours and not be "enabling oppression." it's just an opinion, dude. the opinion of one chick who is a nurse in florida. her opinion isn't oppressing anyone.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,557
@617,554 (D)
All of those things are social construct and should be treated as such. No more excuses for bad behavior, no triggering, no alternative pronouns. If a penis on a body means nothing than neither does a penis in the brain. Sorry
All of those things are social construct and should be treated as such. No more excuses for bad behavior, no triggering, no alternative pronouns. If a penis on a body means nothing than neither does a penis in the brain. Sorry
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,560
@617,265 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
> I am not a man. I am a pansexual
Please stop masturbating into cookware.
> I am not a man. I am a pansexual
Please stop masturbating into cookware.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,567
@617,557 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
It's not, though.
You, on the other hand, seem to be gleefully stuck in ideological traditions which have entirely stagnated for forty years, deliberately ignoring any new research and exploration of what gender is beyond weird fucking essentialist stuff which is usually used by manosphere ideologues to excuse rape culture. Like. Your ideology is transphobic, classist, imperialistic, colonialist, racist, and actually literally misogynistic, so just fuck off back to the early '70s or keep up with the times.
It's not, though.
You, on the other hand, seem to be gleefully stuck in ideological traditions which have entirely stagnated for forty years, deliberately ignoring any new research and exploration of what gender is beyond weird fucking essentialist stuff which is usually used by manosphere ideologues to excuse rape culture. Like. Your ideology is transphobic, classist, imperialistic, colonialist, racist, and actually literally misogynistic, so just fuck off back to the early '70s or keep up with the times.
Anonymous D double-posted this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,568
@617,556 (squeegee)
1. That's not what I said, though.
2. Well, it's, in one way, another example of "white makes right". "Hey, us enlightened Europeans are so much more enlightened than you that we can call your identities outright invalid" is the message being sent.
3. I'm not erasing white queer people or white cishet people who aren't shit about queer issues, though. I'm just pointing out that groups are relevant here, and that Western culture tends to be hostile to all forms of queerness to varying degrees on a systemic level.
To answer this question adequately, though, is Kook from a white-dominated colonial country outside of Europe, a non-colonised country outside of Europe, or Europe itself? This is actually extremely relevant to the dynamics at hand.
4. I can see exactly what you're getting at, and the intent of the people introducing the line of discourse is entirely relevant. Jim Crow "white"/"colored" was an attempt to segregate Black people; contemporary anti-racist white and PoC is a simple classification made to draw a line, for the purposes of analysis, between people who are oppressed by racism and people who aren't.
5. No, not really — it's just an observation that this bigotry is codified in multiple vaguely different ideologies which modify how it's conveyed.
1. That's not what I said, though.
2. Well, it's, in one way, another example of "white makes right". "Hey, us enlightened Europeans are so much more enlightened than you that we can call your identities outright invalid" is the message being sent.
3. I'm not erasing white queer people or white cishet people who aren't shit about queer issues, though. I'm just pointing out that groups are relevant here, and that Western culture tends to be hostile to all forms of queerness to varying degrees on a systemic level.
To answer this question adequately, though, is Kook from a white-dominated colonial country outside of Europe, a non-colonised country outside of Europe, or Europe itself? This is actually extremely relevant to the dynamics at hand.
4. I can see exactly what you're getting at, and the intent of the people introducing the line of discourse is entirely relevant. Jim Crow "white"/"colored" was an attempt to segregate Black people; contemporary anti-racist white and PoC is a simple classification made to draw a line, for the purposes of analysis, between people who are oppressed by racism and people who aren't.
5. No, not really — it's just an observation that this bigotry is codified in multiple vaguely different ideologies which modify how it's conveyed.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,569
@617,567 (D)
Okay honey. The sex of people doesn't matter until you need it to. That's fine, but don't expect everyone to believe that bullshit.
Okay honey. The sex of people doesn't matter until you need it to. That's fine, but don't expect everyone to believe that bullshit.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,571
@previous (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
What do you consider to be sex? I will ask this again and again until you can give a concrete definition that doesn't involve some kind of incredulous "How don't you know?" which relies upon the assumption that the target will buy into cissexist narratives of how human identity is "supposed to" work.
What do you consider to be sex? I will ask this again and again until you can give a concrete definition that doesn't involve some kind of incredulous "How don't you know?" which relies upon the assumption that the target will buy into cissexist narratives of how human identity is "supposed to" work.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,572
Canti joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,573
ITT: word salad
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,574
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,576
@617,572 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
Kook, take a moment to think of the implications of what you just fucking said.
People like you try to push extremist gender abolitionism as a worldwide thing, against the wishes of people in cultures where gender has actually never caused problems. If the gender abolitionist stuff was limited to Western culture, it'd just be transphobic as fuck, but most of you people want to apply it to the whole world, other cultures be damned.
Kook, take a moment to think of the implications of what you just fucking said.
People like you try to push extremist gender abolitionism as a worldwide thing, against the wishes of people in cultures where gender has actually never caused problems. If the gender abolitionist stuff was limited to Western culture, it'd just be transphobic as fuck, but most of you people want to apply it to the whole world, other cultures be damned.
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,579
@617,572 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
> There are no such things as sex or gender.
Sex, as defined by biology, is a thing; at least, in species where sex is a thing. Gender, gender identity, and sexual identity I would say is pretty much cultural.
@previous (D)
> most of you people want to apply it to the whole world, other cultures be damned.
Painting: Best done with vague interest and a broad brush.
> There are no such things as sex or gender.
Sex, as defined by biology, is a thing; at least, in species where sex is a thing. Gender, gender identity, and sexual identity I would say is pretty much cultural.
@previous (D)
> most of you people want to apply it to the whole world, other cultures be damned.
Painting: Best done with vague interest and a broad brush.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,582
@previous (F)
Eh, I'm not going to impose my own metaphysics upon people who I'm involved in the continued colonisation of. I'm already doing enough damage just by being here; as such, I need to take measures to minimise the damage that I do inflict.
Eh, I'm not going to impose my own metaphysics upon people who I'm involved in the continued colonisation of. I'm already doing enough damage just by being here; as such, I need to take measures to minimise the damage that I do inflict.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,583
@617,576 (D)
You're actually saying that in America currently, gender is not causing any problems? Really?
You're actually saying that in America currently, gender is not causing any problems? Really?
kook !!Phkn/3Gic double-posted this 11 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,584
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,587
@617,583 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
You can start working towards a solution by shutting the fuck up about "America" and taking a look at the problem on an international scale. Who the fuck outside of the US cares that the US is stagnating? People care about the US not fucking destroying their lives, not the US ~stagnating~. Holy fucking Christ. Your country literally does not matter. My country literally does not matter. If your political discourse starts and ends at America! America! America!, you are literally the fucking problem with the world, holy shit.
You can start working towards a solution by shutting the fuck up about "America" and taking a look at the problem on an international scale. Who the fuck outside of the US cares that the US is stagnating? People care about the US not fucking destroying their lives, not the US ~stagnating~. Holy fucking Christ. Your country literally does not matter. My country literally does not matter. If your political discourse starts and ends at America! America! America!, you are literally the fucking problem with the world, holy shit.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,588
@617,554 (D)
Everyone reading this thread already knows you are gay. You didn't have to mention it.
Also, you are retarded.
Everyone reading this thread already knows you are gay. You didn't have to mention it.
Also, you are retarded.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,590
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,591
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,592
@617,590 (D)
So its the same as when blacks call each other nigger? How is it a slur?
I stand by my opinion that you are retarded. How is it that you can babble on about gender and sex and how it's all so undefined, until someone transitions, at which point it changes as someone is clearly moving from one, to the other?
Does transsexually define genders clearly and obviously for you? Does it define genders as what 99.9% of the world already recognizes them to be?
So its the same as when blacks call each other nigger? How is it a slur?
I stand by my opinion that you are retarded. How is it that you can babble on about gender and sex and how it's all so undefined, until someone transitions, at which point it changes as someone is clearly moving from one, to the other?
Does transsexually define genders clearly and obviously for you? Does it define genders as what 99.9% of the world already recognizes them to be?
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,594
@617,591 (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
You've got to be fucking kidding. Your trash government is funding fascist coups in both Ukraine and Venezuela right now. That's not "not much of anything" to the people fucking living there.
Granted, the PRC is roughly as bad in terms of human rights, but don't pretend that the US is neutered and unthreatening when it's still at the forefront of destroying the environment and exploiting the poor. The US has a long way go, either down or up, before it's not a threat to humanity as a whole.
You've got to be fucking kidding. Your trash government is funding fascist coups in both Ukraine and Venezuela right now. That's not "not much of anything" to the people fucking living there.
Granted, the PRC is roughly as bad in terms of human rights, but don't pretend that the US is neutered and unthreatening when it's still at the forefront of destroying the environment and exploiting the poor. The US has a long way go, either down or up, before it's not a threat to humanity as a whole.
Anonymous D double-posted this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,597
@617,592 (J)
I'm not even gonna respond to arguments if they contain slurs, just saying. That's entirely unacceptable behaviour.
I'm not even gonna respond to arguments if they contain slurs, just saying. That's entirely unacceptable behaviour.
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,604
Anonymous J double-posted this 11 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,612
@617,597 (D)
I think you aren't going to respond because the fact that trannys clearly define genders ruins you whole argument.
I think you aren't going to respond because the fact that trannys clearly define genders ruins you whole argument.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,628
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 57 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,641
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,642
@previous (D)
Your cognitive distortion seems to be an inability to disconfirm. "That's not the real issue, there's deeper problems and other factors etc"
Fuck off.
Your cognitive distortion seems to be an inability to disconfirm. "That's not the real issue, there's deeper problems and other factors etc"
Fuck off.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,644
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,646
@617,520 (D)I'm not gonna waste any more time by reading the other 40 replies, but all your apologism can't save you from the fact that you're still just a white male shitlord.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,678
@617,644 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
Immersing yourself in shit is, as society currently is, a much smaller risk than the process of coming out as trans and transitioning. Like, legit. That's tiny, comparatively speaking.
On the other hand, yeah, lots of men are misogynistic trash — but essentially none would fake their way through numerous levels of gatekeeping to get put on hormones which permanently alter one's physiology and appearance, put themselves at risk of hate crimes, and subject themselves to constant harassment just to fuck a few lesbians.
Immersing yourself in shit is, as society currently is, a much smaller risk than the process of coming out as trans and transitioning. Like, legit. That's tiny, comparatively speaking.
On the other hand, yeah, lots of men are misogynistic trash — but essentially none would fake their way through numerous levels of gatekeeping to get put on hormones which permanently alter one's physiology and appearance, put themselves at risk of hate crimes, and subject themselves to constant harassment just to fuck a few lesbians.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,681
@previous (D)
Well yeah. It is silly of the lesbians to get so butthurt over being "tricked" into, what is in their minds, a "straight relationship" that they would try to outlaw all transgenderism.
Well yeah. It is silly of the lesbians to get so butthurt over being "tricked" into, what is in their minds, a "straight relationship" that they would try to outlaw all transgenderism.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,682
@previous (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
The context to the distrust of men among some lesbian women is highly different from that of the disdain for women found in far too many gay men, really. "A lot of these guys are literally physically dangerous tools to us" is quite different from "I don't want to stick my dick in there".
The context to the distrust of men among some lesbian women is highly different from that of the disdain for women found in far too many gay men, really. "A lot of these guys are literally physically dangerous tools to us" is quite different from "I don't want to stick my dick in there".
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,684
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,685
@previous (kook !!Phkn/3Gic)
You're ~completely~ missing the point. What I'm saying is that, given the opportunity to form a new society from a basis of fucking nothing, you wouldn't be guaranteed to get the same social constructs. It's a thought experiment.
You're ~completely~ missing the point. What I'm saying is that, given the opportunity to form a new society from a basis of fucking nothing, you wouldn't be guaranteed to get the same social constructs. It's a thought experiment.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,686
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,687
@previous (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
You say that like I'm not aware of that--
--I'm suggesting that its origin is in ideology that positions men as the only people with agency, let alone meaningful ability to change things.
You say that like I'm not aware of that--
--I'm suggesting that its origin is in ideology that positions men as the only people with agency, let alone meaningful ability to change things.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,688
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,738
@617,687 (D)
Your emotional reasoning must be a grate coping strategy for when the big meanie poopy pants say things you don't like.
Your emotional reasoning must be a grate coping strategy for when the big meanie poopy pants say things you don't like.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,742
@previous (J)
That's... some... interesting logic. (I'd be lying if I said that PoC can't be racist, though - I've actually seen it happen - it's just that racism against white people, by anyone in society as it currently exists, is currently impossible.)
That's... some... interesting logic. (I'd be lying if I said that PoC can't be racist, though - I've actually seen it happen - it's just that racism against white people, by anyone in society as it currently exists, is currently impossible.)
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,750
@previous (D)
You can't use your emotional reasoning to make exceptions to suit your own agenda. Racism is race based discrimination. Nigger.
You can't use your emotional reasoning to make exceptions to suit your own agenda. Racism is race based discrimination. Nigger.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,751
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,757
kook !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 11 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #617,775
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 16 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #617,926
@617,757 (J)
Nah it has to be a Latin-African-American hybrid male winning woman of the year to be the endgame.
@617,742 (D)
> it's just that racism against white people, by anyone in society as it currently exists, is currently impossible
No, that's just what tumblr believes. Racism exists for all races, and every race is capable of racism.
Nah it has to be a Latin-African-American hybrid male winning woman of the year to be the endgame.
@617,742 (D)
> it's just that racism against white people, by anyone in society as it currently exists, is currently impossible
No, that's just what tumblr believes. Racism exists for all races, and every race is capable of racism.