Is trans feminism/liberation/activism a bourgeois movement?

Yes

Thanks to feminism, women can mercilessly exploit hard working beta men for their money through divorce laws and are actually socially encouraged to do so. There is literally no consequence to marrying a man for his money, cheating on him with Chad, taking all his shit and them shaming him for complaining. Thank you feminism.

Holy shit. Fuck this world. Fuck this man.

See, why is physical abuse considered bad yet this level of emotional abuse not? A man should be able to hit a woman for doing this with no consequences (if a man did this to a man, he would). Feminism is actually fine with double standards as long as they benefit women.

thanks to capitalism you mean. Capitalist ideology is what makes this shit possible.

This is the definition of using someone. The way I see it she's in his debt and needs to pay him back since she now has the means.

Its actually being alive that makes this possible you moron. Being alive is revisionist and an offence to my feelings.

I am sure that if the male were Chad and dominant, she wouldn't have had that issue. Women have to sets of standards for Chads and betas. They let the 1st do all the shit she would hate the 2nd doing to her, plus more.

This one doesn't add up. How does she know his grades if she's refusing to talk to him?

Probably heard it from a friend.

Dude this antifeminism blackpill shit is just pathetic on your part

Take it easy for once

Why do you keep posting the same exact images with the same exact edgy filenames every single thread?

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT WHICH SIDE YOU ARE IN A CONFLICT, IT'S ABOUT WHICH CONFLICT YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE CENTRAL ONE

I'll see you in two years, comrades.

Putting aside everything else, the fact she can't even just be honest and tell him she just wants to break up makes me so mad.

don't ever post again

I'm all for trans liberation, but its pretty obvious that being able to choose your gender identity from among 86 different options is consumerist bourgeois decadence. I think a lot of these people don't really have gender dysphoria but instead are finding a new way to assert their individual identity in a capitalist system where the only sense of meaning you have is becoming your "authentic self" through your consumption choices.

this. i've seen it happen more than once irl. most recently to a friend who i'm pretty sure decided they were trans based on nothing but pressure from people and shitty memes on twitter. i wish i was kidding. also don't forget all the commodities one is compelled to buy to live that authentic identity once the choice is made. Everything from the hormone treatments to new wardrobe to all the shit required for a name change. never mind surgery and shit if you go that far. every step of the way, there is profit being extracted.

Totally pathetic. It's like trying to portray women as exploitative overlords, deciding who and who is not worthy of sex. Which is obvious BS because men do that all the time. Incels are not complaining that overweight ugly women won't give them the sex, they're complaining that 9s and 10s won't. Well if you are judging which women are worthy, why can't they judge you and find you lacking?

We have a winrar.

I think it is. It came out of nowhere and we have much larger identity groups being opposed like blacks.
Also they always fight about stuff that wouldn't cost porky anything, and not stuff like not being able to deny trans people an apartment, which would cause property values to decline, and deny them jobs.

This

Yep.
Class war comes first, ALWAYS, it's always a priority above all.
Feminists, faggots and all the other sorts of degenerates, deserve to be hanged, for putting their selfish interests, in front of the Revolution.

The only movement which is important is the movement for class equality.

Trans identity is men perpetuating feminine stereotypes because they find a certain charm in them, which is easy to do when you're on the outside looking in. A "TERF" is anybody who disagrees with this, because it's exclusionary to point out that gender is not a playground and has been wielded as a weapon against women throughout history.

So yes, gender-trending is inherently reactionary. Just like with capital, they're vocally defending their right to exploit a social structure for personal gratification, where those with the most experience under it would rather see it abolished.

I should clarify this. I don't think all or even most trannies are eager fetishists.
That "charm" seen in the stereotypes of the opposite sex is often something borne of extreme alienation and desperation in a sexist culture that devalues the lives of men as well.
It still doesn't make transitioning appropriate however.

It sure brings everything down with it.

On the one hand: Androgynity and drag by adults.

On the other hand: Prepubescents that doesn't the difference between up and down are non-reversible "corrected".

And somehow, you can't have the one without the other.

Is just another way to say that you want a change in the elite.

There will always be an elite. And even if the greentards got their deep eco-revolution because of lolgaritarianism, the new ruling class will be those who can breed, keep, train and ride horses.

what are you even talking about.
Horses are gay so no.

I hear people saying its pointless to push idpol before capitalism is ended, but isnt the fact that idpol is making significant progress in changing attitudes proof that they dont need socialism at all?

… why?

Thank you for confirming that TERFs have no fucking clue about transsexualism.
Its not about perpetuating gender stereotypes or anything like that, its about feeling comfortable with one's body. As a wretched disgusting tranny I can honestly say that I'd still wish to transition even if sterotypical gender roles were nonexistent or completely reversed, and I don't personally do anything that might "perpetuate feminine stereotypes" unless you're one of those weirdos that thinks shaving your legs is "patriarchal oppression" or some shit.
While there may be a few who transition purely due to gender stereotypes, especially now due to increased awareness of the subject, such people aren't really the norm, though there are of course some who conform to stereotypes simply for the sake of social acceptance the same way most normal people do.
And no, I don't think trans issues (or any other type of idpol) should take precedence over class struggle or anything like that, I wouldn't be here if that was the case.

Do you consider yourself a woman?
If so, how do you know you're one?

I have some sympathy for your viewpoint. Would you mind telling us what true womanhood is about?
Women always struck me as, to put it bluntly, handicapped men. To be able to carry a child and so on, they were inflicted with a whole host of debilitating characteristics. I don't see any upside, frankly, beyond the aforementioned ability to incubate offspring.

Womanhood is a set of culturally-relative social norms imposed upon female-sexed humans from the moment they are born, many of them tied to reproductive capacity. You shouldn't need this spelled out for you because manhood is the exact same thing! I hope your are introspective enough to consider your identity versus what is expected of men in your society, and notice the inevitable incongruities within that matchup.
The problem with transgenderism is that it rightly diagnoses the absurdity of male gender roles but jumps to the even more absurd conclusion that the individual in question must actually be a woman because he fails to live up to these ideals.

Well, yeah…
Anyone who unironically uses the term 'class reductionism' or 'brocialist' is Porky's favourite wagie.

If womanhood is a set of culturally relative social norms, is it not enough to assume those roles and be recognized in those roles by society, to become a women? Or is there still a different womanhood separate from the womanhood you described? That's what I was getting at, what is the deal about being a female sexed human? What should that count for? Should it come with privileges (exclusive female spaces etc.) or responsibilities? Why? And so on.

I don't know what is expected of men in society anymore. It used to be something on the order of having a stable career to support a family of four as leader of the family unit, while stoically accepting and dealing with whatever adversity came up. That has since been deemed absurd, outdated and patriarchal, and nothing has replaced it. Not even a more universal unisex social norm, because rejecting anything normative is the new normal.
It's time for a new consensus on minimally socially necessary social roles for both sexes. Individuality is overrated, and it is clear that the bare reproduction of society implies some degree of subordinating individual quirks to useful social norms. You can only run a society composed solely of childless agenders for about one generation. Either that, or we offload it all on the bureaucratic State and keep on being very special individuals.

lol

Read literally the next post.

Feminism and racial identity politics are both absolutely, completely and utterly compatible with capitalism. Porky has realised this and weaponised both as a vehicle or generating profit for a hundred years. Just attempt to fathom how much money has been generated from liberalised feminist university courses, let alone the tens of thousands of products that are either sold explicitly to feminists or which lean upon feminist ideas in their advertising.
Nobody can say this on twitter, in a blog post or IRL however as they will be immediately expelled from the activist circles that they have based their identity, dating prospects and friendship groups around, so nobody says it unless they reach a breaking point.

That's like saying socialism is "utterly compatible" with capitalism because people, like, buy Che shirts dude!

There's liberal feminism and there's not so liberal feminism. I think deliberately obtuse bullshit from idiots like you is just an unfortunate and inevitable consequence of a nominally-leftist board hosted on a site that arose out of reaction over motherfucking videogames

No, it isn't.

No, it's just that capitalism has a tendency to commodify and sell you absolutely anything and everything it possibly can. Also support for the struggles of trans people and women isn't solely a bourgeois thing.

Maybe they're just trying to find the most accurate way of describing their experience of gender? You don't have to have dysphoria to be trans although it's really common. I'm sure there are people like that but it seems like you're stretching it a bit much and covering it with pseudo-Marxist jargon, idk.

It didn't come out of nowhere, it's just that public support and awareness came rapidly due to the previous struggles by LGBT people making LG acceptance more mainstream recently. Trans people have and always will exist.
That's liberals for you.

Class is the bedrock but without the other issues being taken care of within the movement for class abolition it's much more likely to fail, I see the problem as being more about liberal pseudo-leftists who constantly ignore class.

Not the person you're responding to but what does being agender have to do with being childless?

The capitalist class are fine with social liberalism as long as they arent working to overthrow the state. In fact these identities are commodified and sold back to these people for profit.
It is in capitalisms interest to absorb the marginalized into their machine. More women ceo's, more black executives, etc
Identity politics is used to divide the proles and people of the same material conditions, make them fight culture wars over statues and video games.
The last thing the rich want is the alt right and sjw's growing a class consciousness and uniting to overthrow the class system.

Capitalism needs the population to be effeminate docile cows that dont rock the boat. No communists, no fascists, no religious extremists, no violence, nothing that would threaten the status quo of liberal capitalism.
Just a bunch of brain dead consumers wasting their money on cheap Chinese plastic shit in this strip mall called a nation.
The destruction of all tradition, spirituality, revolution, replaced by being a TOTAL NERD WHO LIKES STARWARS AND BUYING STAR WARS BRAND PRODUCTS AND TEACHING MY KIDS ABOUT STARWARS AND PASSING DOWN THE BRAND FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION OF CONSUMER.

So, its okay to be gay or black. But dont go forming a union, doing a strike, fighting for a better wage or better economic material conditions. In fact never talk about, never talk about class issues ever.

On another note the trans issue only exploded in recent times because the democrats got gay people the right to marry so they needed another bullshit wedge issue.

I agree with TERFs in that trannies aren't real women and don't deserve political power over women's spaces. I disagree with them over the idea that gender is arbitrarily constructed, because I see it as the cultural extension of biological sex, which arises from these material differences, which are not constructed. That's why all cultures give rise to these difference, and as material circumstances change, so do the roles of men and women in society. Beyond that, TERFs bring psychology against trannies which interprets their behavior, but doesn't get to the cause of trans dysphoria or its possible treatments. Until we understand how to fix their dysphoric brains, trannies & their doctors will continue trying to turn dysphoric men and women into their sexual opposites. We're really just waiting to see which comes first, a treatment which makes someone the opposite sex (down to their dna and genitalia) or a treatment which alleviates dysphoria through brain chemistry. It will probably be both, but which will be cheaper?

t. mayonnaise-gender

That's literally bourgeois decadence. The level of leisure and comfort you need to be at before you can even begin to be bothered with that kind of navel gazing is quite high.
Childbearing is the most gendered act there is. It would entail annihilating your own agender identity and assuming womanhood. Unless this stuff is something you can change as easily as other people change a shirt, idk.

Maybe in the first world, where most feminists and transactvists are upper-class college girls, genderfluid teens and general tumblrfolk. Here in the southern hemisphere, poor women are second class citizens whose only prospects are being maids and housewives, and who live under constant threat of violence and rape. And trans people are about the most marginalized you can get. Of course these are all to do with class oppression which is the most important concern, but whenever I see a lefty claim idpol (is there any other kind?) is a neoliberal or postmodern thing I just know their reference of feminists are trendy youtubers or some shit.

alright red liberals, let me give it to you straight. this fag culture simply doesn't exist when capitalism isn't in decline. fascist decadence always coincides with queer shit that pops in the societies that surround them e.g. Weimar Germany or the United States. under Communism sexual fun would either cease to exist or reach an all-time low naturally.
in other words: "exterminate the faggots and fascism will disappear," not that I'm suggesting we actually do such a thing.

Why don't you think it's arbitrarily constructed user? You've admitted that the roles arise from material conditions (I agree but don't think that they come solely from providing a social function) and that the roles change as the circumstances change; how are any of these archaic gender roles required in our current society?

How did you go from the former to the latter?

"cultural extension of biological sex" is a bullshit ideological justification for literally anything you want. The same argument was made to keep women from suffrage or holding a job "they're just biologically suited to be homemakers".

How can you tell the difference between a woman and a man?

You're not making much sense, user

gender isn't a real thing, it's literally made up bullshit that trannies use to justify their bullshit. the only thing that exists are sexes.
you're either a man or you're a woman, and it's biological, that's fucking it.
now it's one thing to say "I am going to dress up as a woman, pretend to be a woman, and live as a woman etc" but don't expect everyone to just immediately humor you for the rest of your life: it's a choice that you fucking made
and before the bleeding heart liberals come out and tell me "oh but they'll kill themselves if they don't switch genders can't we just all agree to have sex with bearded ladies?" you can fuck right off because it's scientifically proven swapping genders has ZERO affect on suicide rates. if you think under communism everyone's going to want to spend the time and resources humoring you and help you mutilate your genitals you are in for a rude awakening, my friend.
I'd like to end my post with a quote from Slavoj Zizek: "discipline and the spirit of sacrifice: there is nothing inherently 'Fascist' about these values."

The reality of transgenderism shows that you are wrong. If gender did not have a strong basis in biology which does not make it the same as sex, then there would be no need to do HRT in order to better fulfill a particular gender role.

You are in the wrong thread, snowflake. The reality of what has been done to gay men and transwomen shows what a complete bullshit artist you are. Even lesbians have always had it easier than both in Western society since the adoption of Christianity.

no it isn't. even if the most reductionist empiricist sense, intersex, hermaphrodites, etc have been around since the beginning. Zizek would say you aren't being conceptual enough.

So Buck Angel is a woman and Bailey Jay is a man?

There are poor people with gender dysphoria, and they are in very dire straights. The number of people without gender dysphoria who buy into your bourgois genderbending, however, will likely be minuscule.
And you have to be a woman to bear children,yes. A trans man who becomes pregnant has obviously botched her transition to social manhood. She is no longer a man at least for the duration of the pregnancy, clear for all to see.

the mpreg tag on many boorus proves you wrong

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

this argument from Holla Forums circa 2007 convinced everyone at the time but it seems we've only gone backwards. No reactionary has ever presented a convincing argument that having sex with buck angel wouldn't be gay as fuck.

No, it does not do that.

...

Then how do you explain all the trans people that lived outside of your special-snowflake gender roles without being dysphoric.

So agender people who have vaginas can't give birth?

Due primarily to bigotry in various cultures. We are most familiar with the problems of any culture steeped in Abrahamic religion, though that's not the only social/cultural basis for the mistreatment of transgenders historically or in the modern day.

I think the main issue is honestly Tumblr genderqueers and lolcows such as Char the Butcher and Ahuviya Harel who were so obnoxious and so different from people like Linetrap and Dark Trap, who were simply fun people doing their own thing.

Also, trans activism like gay activism became very obnoxious over the past decade and focused on things like whether Christian bakers have to make them wedding cakes as opposed to real issues.

Agreed. I remember reading about a trans man who had given birth and had now equipped their body with a piece of Frankenstein apparatus to allow them to breastfeed after having earlier undergone a double mastectomy. The comments on the blog were full of women remarking on how brave and remarkable the trans man was and generally being supportive in the way that women do to each other. I'm sat there wondering for a little while why exactly this person is not using a bottle in the same way that anyone who had been born a man would. I look at the behaviour of the cooing mothers and the behaviour of the blog author and realize that this person is a woman playing dress up.

They stop being agender at least for the duration of the pregnancy. This is devolving into snowflake semantics, but it is so if agender is to have any meaning that is not already covered under queer.

No and I think many butch lesbians would give you a slap over that. Go away, mayonnaise-gender.

I have no idea how to respond to this nonsense.

No, that's not what I said. I'm referring to other cultures that don't share your culturally specific ideas of what gender is.

Tbh, transmen as well as transwomen who want SRS are harder to defend from the charge of mental illness. It's one thing to take a different gender role and even take hormones and get plastic surgery, and quite another thing to want to have organs surgically removed.

Of course, that doesn't mean you don't show them compassion.

So your culturally specific ideas of what a transgender person is don't apply to them, n1x.

...

Yes and no. I'm not delusional, I'm well aware of the fact that I'm still genetically male and I can only hope that medical science will someday reach the point where I can change that and never have to deal with this shit ever again. However, I guess I'd say that my self-image or is female? Its kind of difficult to describe. Simple things that made me aware of my own body like looking in the mirror always felt uncomfortable, even the sound of my own voice was rather jarring, like hearing someone else reading my thoughts off of a script rather than myself. Even in a more abstract sense being a girl just seemed to fit better, simple things like when my dad would say "I'm proud of you, son" for doing well in school would make me wince despite being a positive statement, while things like playing female characters in vidya and simply being referred to as such in-game just felt natural. As I said before, its about feeling comfortable with one's body, and transitioning has helped a ton in that regard even if its not perfect.

You're assuming that its all about conforming to gender stereotypes when most of us just want to be able to look in the mirror without wanting to gouge our fucking eyes out. If some guy wants to act stereotypically feminine or a chick wants to act stereotypically masculine or anywhere in between then they're perfectly welcome to, but that's not the same as being trans.

I'm assuming he's just meme'ing based on that one MemriTV screencap

if all the effort dedicated to arguing about transgender people was instead turned to revolution we'd have socialism in mere hours.

alternatively if current trends keep up, eventually so many people will argue about this at work that we will see the productivity impact of a general strike without conscious effort, destroying capitalism.

all tracks on the materialist train lead in the same direction.

Im deeply suspicious of transitioning (an expensive procedure) being pushed as the solution to dysphoria, but that's about my only thoughts on that. Terfs are annoying and shitty though.

Reddit tourist detected. Fuck off back to your hug box.

No it isn't as the other user said. If you honestly cannot understand the difference then you are beyond helping.

Not anchoring that Holla Forums rehabilitation thread was a big mistake.

I remember Angela Nagel talking about how patriarchy was based in job circumstances where men had manual work that shortened their lifespan, but gave them status as breadwinner. I would say that they were probably never required, though they must have come from a material place, which allowed for the ideology of control of women to manifest and be implemented by the class which could afford to. On the other hand, Jaques Barzun claimed that before voting there were women in the upperclasses who held power and made achievements, which didn't fit with the narrative of women oppressed into male-directed servitude. Because they rely on changing circumstances, it's hard to say what roles are, how they manifest over time, who has them and who doesn't.

Feminism was historically an upperclass movement, with rich women wanting to vote. Even giving women jobs was supported by the upperclass because it created a larger workforce to tax. None of this nullifies the desires of women in society, though it shows how capital seeks out those circumstances which will strengthen its power over society. This would also explain why feminism is now about transgenders, even though many women in the united states lack access to reproductive healthcare. Things are so corrupt that corporations are claiming religious freedoms so that they don't have to pay for contraceptives and abortion is constantly opposed by a business class which desires a larger workforce. All of this, yet trannies take priority as a vocal minority who dominate the current narrative. And trannies don't really care about these services, because their material circumstance don't necessitate them, (males don't need birth control). I think TERFs know this, and don't want to waste resources on a group which doesn't have the same goals, because they don't know how to make males care about reproductive healthcare, but they're frustrated that they can't stop them from defining what feminism is and directing it away from the material goals of real (lowerclass) women.

No one will be laughing when it's feudalism again. Not even you.

Screencapping this and posting it in one of the big liberal subreddits would be like lighting a match in a warehouse full of fireworks

they always pop up in hordes when Capitalism is on the verge of collapse.

jsdoitfgt

"Sexism is the foundation on which all tyranny is built. Every social form of heirarchy and abuse is modeled on male-over-female domination." -Karl Marx

almost got me there

There's nothing wrong with it but it's a waste of any cisgendered person's time to concern themselves with this bullshit lmfao.

The problem with this line of thinking is assuming anyone else cares. I don't care if you feel girly today and manly yesterday, you fag. The only reason we care about gender is because this is a sexually dimorphic species and this information can be useful for certain interactions. Nobody fucking cares about what you think about gender.

I agree. Trans """comrades""" have always been the ones to be the most visibly """communist""" and drop socialist politics the quickest. They tend to be people who are struggling to define themselves.

Gender dysphoria isn't just wanting to be a girl retards it's a documented mental condition that exists and had to do with the physical body they feel trapped in

Those are minuscule exceptions and due to anomalies. Humans, that do not possess these defects are either male or female, man or woman. You don't get to chop your dick off and justify it with rare disorders that you don't have.

Fascinating

Yeah, it doesn't make them a different fucking gender though ffs

Buck Angel is a woman. A very ugly and manish woman, but still a woman. Bailey Jay is just a girly man that crossdresses. This hasn't changed anything. And you're also ignoring the fact that most trannies don't look like that, and it's quite obvious which ones are the male ones and which ones are the female ones.

Rid yourself of spooks

Bahaha, you bourgeois gimp

Well to be fair, she is a much more profound and compelling philosopher than Karl Marx, and, if institutional sexism did not exist, leftist professors would be teaching her theories in schools.

YES

Now lock the fucking thread already

You're a fucking retard.

Saying deer are brown would be fucking wrong though. You can say Deer are mostly brown or tend to be brown but yes Albino deers existence makes the statement Deer are brown false

Reddit tier garbage argument

You can stop fretting over fixed immaterial abstractions any time

Okay, then unless you have a rare genetic condition you are either a man or a woman. Don't have those? Then realize that your problem is real only to you and the rest of us can tell whether you're a man or a woman.

At least that makes more sense, but then I'd ask why then is it acceptable for intersex people to identify as female or male and that is accepted? Should we just go off looks? If that's the case then who gives a fuck if a passing trans person gets called him or her?

One thing I can't fathom is why crossdressers and drag queens deserve respect, do we need to respect peoples kinks and have them brought to schools to read kids stories dressed like idiots? What about people who wear gimp masks? It's complete and utter narcissism and liberal wank.

Your approach is basically saying there is no difference between sex and gender, even when I give you a perfect example as to why that modern distinction makes sense.

It depends on what you mean by trannies, which is a broad term. To use Blanchard's categories for the sake of this discussion, a typical HSTS who goes on hormones in their teens will usually be passable. Maybe not beautiful, nobody has that guarantee, but passable. With groups like Asians that have low sexual dimorphism, the vast majority of them will look passable. Whites and some other Caucasians usually have the most uphill battle here.

Now, if you mean crossdressers or people who go on hormones in their 30s and up, then no, they are usually not passable, and almost never attractive. And honestly, they are not as focused on their outward beauty as HSTS transwomen.

The same reason a half German half French man gets to choose what he identifies as and an Albanian doesn't.
We do go off looks. It just so happens that most trannies don't pull it off and then get offended, but this is only for casual interactions. We wouldn't have one standard for all cases. This would be stupid. I'd be inclined to believe you if you told me you were Italian. A border agent might have a much higher standard of proof.
Trannies, apparently, and you better learn their pronouns. Of course, this isn't the only problem with saying that looks are what counts. You also have trannies complaining that people won't date them, or that they have to be upfront about it with people like that. You have problems with them competing in sports leagues that do not have place for them. These are all minor issues, though if you're not trans. If you are, then they seem to be the biggest issues and why SJWs keep pushing this shit that is really just annoying for the rest of us. I'll call you what you want to be called out of being kind, but don't expect me to actually treat you like that in all cases. I wouldn't, for example, fuck a tranny, nor would I date one or marry one. If this seems discriminatory to you, I assure you it's not. I don't date men or sleep with them, but I'll gladly call one Nancy and refer to him as a woman if it's what makes him comfortable.

You people love to deal in absolutes when we all should know by now as grown ass adults that standards vary depending on the situation. What you want is a universal standard and not only does it not exist, but it would be impractical to do so for almost anything relating to identity.

Drag queens are egoists.

Yeah and trades the chance at a normal life in their own sex, fertility and snapping out of their dysphoria like so many.

No, you gave a shit example and I told you why.

And that's irrelevant. I don't care if you "pass" as something else. It doesn't' change fundamental facts about what you are.

And this is also irrelevant, since the standard was never beauty and isn't a problem here. The problem is who is a woman and who is a man, and the answer is that males are men and females are women. This doesn't change, and unless you have a rare genetic condition, you are not an exception to this rule. People may be polite, but don't expect people to act the same to you as they would an actual member of the gender that you are cosplaying as in every single case. That is unreasonable and rude.

Sure, why not?

All human beings deserve respect unless they are terrible individuals.

At most, you can say that they have particular mental illnesses. I'm definitely not saying all transpeople do, but some forms of gender dysphoria would probably qualify.

Drag has a long history in our culture, and in a more innocent time lacked most of the sexual overtones that it sometimes has today. Here is F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author of The Great Gatsby, in drag.

Because the concept of kink-shaming is idiotic and not everything you do or like has to be respected. Do what you want, and be aware that others may judge you on it. For example, if you wear bright orange shoes and a golden Afro, I will know that you are gangster as fuck. Fail to do this, though, and I know you're not my comrade.

Dude you're terrible at analogies
Otherwise I tend to agree with your position that trans people shouldn't get offended in casual interaction over pronouns. It seems the only thing we really disagree on is whether or not you really consider trans people to be their presented gender. Which I can't force you to accept and is honestly irrelevant as long as you aren't harassing people.
It is, but that's just because having any kind of sexual taste or proclivities is discriminatory by nature. There's nothing wrong with saying you don't want to be with someone sexually for any reason. But I would advise some self reflection on them (if you protest too much to dating a black person I'd probably think there was something going on but you wouldn't be wrong for making that decision)

Why? Your kinks and freaky shit has nothing to do with other people children, or anyone else and it is beyond me how far liberals have gone with this nonsense. It's making an identity out of hedonism

They are the same sex, but different gender.

So? Not everyone cares about this, especially males. Males are born at the rate of 1.06:1 relative to females.

It depends on what you mean by dysphoria. Many transwomen have probably led much happier lives as women than if they were men, especially heterosexual men. Hint: it's not easy to have feminine characteristics like short stature and a petite frame if you're a man pursuing women.

Here is 5'3" Kimber James. As a heterosexual man with that frame, she would be SOL. As a gay man, she'd have a following, but not as much or for as long as a transwoman.

Dysphoria to the point of pursuing SRS is indeed a problem, I will definitely grant that.

Idiotic, they deserve a level of cordiality, or standard level of behaviour. Respect is a totally different concept and not applicable, it is defined by doing something worthy of admiration and getting your jollies in public isn't part of the equation.

Uh maybe my understanding of american social life in the 20s is meme tier (it comes basically from the great gatsby) but they didn't seem like very innocent times.

Great argument, 10/10, would have this conversation again.

popping in to say that Gatsby was probably a SocDem

They can't live as men if they w

That's narcissism and nothing to do with mental health

feminism is fine

Compared to today, they definitely are, unless you are referring to the existential angst following the Great and senseless War.

You sound gay.

You don't know what narcissism is, whether NPD or the general use of the term.

wrong

We get it, you're a tranny faggot. Nobody is going to respect you for that, but I'll be polite about it if we ever run into each other in public. You're still a huge fag, though(and that's okay).

Really? I thought the roaring 20s were supposed to be a time of decadence and debauchery. Prohibition gangsters, pre-code hollywood, Weimar Germany, the overlook hotel, ruling class opulence, prostitutes, shell shocked WWI veterans, the freikorps and the spectre of a soviet led world revolution. A more innocent time? Really?

In my experience, the people who hate transwomen the most are either religious conservatives or gay men.

I've only seen so many films from the 1920s, but I don't recall anything like Teen Bukakke #17 or the like.

Here's a daring clip from a Buster Keaton film.

I do ;^)

The LGBT community has gone too far! NOOO! wtf! STOP THEM! AaAaAHA Stop them!

Hence why you're a nobody.

Thanks, user. Gynandromorphophilic men unite against transphobic oppression!

cute tbh

5 year old me would've just been hype that there was a dogman

Wouldn't you rather have gone to Disneyworld and seen paid workers dressed as copyrighted characters do rote movements like waving incessantly, an experience that would be so gratifying that you could then nag your parents to buy you hundreds of dollars worth of plastic garbage that will be thrown away in a few years, but if you are lucky will have a certain immortality in the Great Pacific Garbage Dump?

Nope, they wouldn't be ignored.
class is the only priority, if you say other wise, you are just getting in the way.
but those problems will be solved after the revolution.

Don't be retarded any effective party would take advantage of issues of blatant cause towards racial or sexual minorities and agitate in those spaces. We'd openly be against whatever policy it was educating and gaining sympathizers as we go.

Nothing wrong with being trans, but there's also nothing at all "revolutionary" about it either. I personally find it irrelevant, other than the fact that fascists may like targeting them for violence. However, this doesn't all of a sudden elevate them to some special protected class (imo), since fascists target plenty of gays, jews, blacks, latinx, as well.

Basically, any "identity" movement that roots itself in forming some exclusionary culture that is "separate" from the dominant culture is usually liberal revisionist horseshit that I want no part of whatsoever. Your movement is only "communist" if it upholds the class struggle and places the auxiliary struggles in that context. Otherwise, it's just red liberalism – where your members "talk" Marxism, but "practice" liberalism, as Mao said.

Woah so diverse and progressive! Those poor, oppressed lgbtbbqwtfsjw victims are such a rich and vibrant diverse culture. I want them to move in and enrich my community and teach their noble BDSM dogman ways to my children!

Yeah why not sounds cool. You sound boring

lgbt has become a religion. these people believe they are better and more progressive than you just because they GET LITERALLY FUCKED IN THE ASS.

The children are being prepared for the inevitable transition to hypercapitalism and the reintroduction of slavery. Of course slaves aren't need for menial labor anymore, especially given the expansion of private prison schemes and the degradation of overseas workers. But the ruling class does need a supply of amusing office ornaments and eager bodypart-lickers. It's okay to be a slave for those more powerful than you! It's just an alternate lifestyle. It's your right to sell yourself into servitude if you can't make ends meet. You should start learning to bark like a dog right away so you can fetch a higher price on this highly competitive emerging market.

Did you ever think maybe they just thought they were costumes and that was the end of it?

Again the kids are just gonna see a character reading to them
If anything they'll just think it's a cool Halloween costume

yeah you are right, there is definitely no shady gay agenda going on in here.

WTF is this? NOOO! I am now homo/transphobic. Sorry not my fault, but this has gone too far…

I admit that this is a problem. Tattoos suck, and a responsible parent really wouldn't want their kids to be around individuals with any kind of teaching authority who are scarred with lots of tattoos. It might give the kids the impression that tattoos are somehow okay or even cool.

Yes, they're costumes. At a sex party.

I'm sure that all of these people are into these things because of Pride parades. It has absolutely nothing to do at all with shitty corporate cartoons of anthropomorphic animals that kids watch on TV while sitting inside in a world of social isolation and helicopter parenting.

That's disgusting! We need to get these kids at home watching wholesome Disney cartoons.

I probably won't get along with tumblr type lgbt activists or normie gay hedonists, but some of the gay/trans autists on imageboards seem like unironically cool people.

Most people are liberals, so yeah, unless they are explicitly Marxists or Anarchists, assume they are liberals

"anal sex is borgouise decadence."
-t. some based user from a lgbt thread a while back

anyway homosexuality is a hormone and mental disorder.

so that's why it feels so good

so does heroin

Robin Hood was a great animated film and no harm ever came from it, you are being paranoid.

Thanks for reminding us of communism's war on LGBT.

abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/the-history-of-homosexuality-in-russia/5134412

Prior to that, Russia had been unusually permissive for a Christian country.

except for a million furries

Y'all need to learn to appreciate anthropomorphic art without being spooked by furries.

to be fair, it's good to be spooked by furries. I don't shit on people for being trans, but being a furry is another thing entirely. imo, to be a furry means to willfully surrender every last shred of human dignity,, thus becoming a literal degenerate.

absolutely decadent

unnecessary cylables. simply to be labeled sex-related disorders

M8 I would absolutely fuck that girl. You gay or something

lmao

Don't get me wrong, the furry community is repellent. But it would be childish to therefore conclude, I can't like what they like in all instances. That would be illogical.

but the point is, this is not a costume, but a depraved sex fetish lifestyle that is being promoted to children!! just look at these degenerates? HAS SCIENCE GONE TOO FAR?!?

youtube.com/watch?v=o2Bm_wiRT24

youtube.com/watch?v=L1yWH6QSP4k

youtube.com/watch?v=SQWBaFZAxFA

Can you guys give me an argument that supports the notion that capitalism and true feminism are incompatible and that feminism needs to go hand in hand with a critique of capitalism? I believe this is true, but can't really explain why.

Watch what you say - our Xir is a tranny.

There is nothing wrong with feminism. While many feminist talking points have been taken care of (suffrage, education) women still suffer from unpaid labor (domestic labor), experience sexual commodification and are left with a toxic antagonism between motherhood and career (something that would be solved by integrated day-care centers in workplaces, like in the GDR or the DPRK).

Trans liberation is legit insofar as that people who suffer from gender dysphoria should not be bullied. The whole hormone thing is something that is a little fishy. Too often mental illness gets mistaken for an identity.

liberal feminism upholds capitalist standards of success and progress, ie. muh women presidents and CEOs. Liberal feminism is all about changing the content of institutions, but what if the form of the system as a whole is absurd and murderous? What if there's nothing inherently meaningful or worthy of respect in being a CEO, president or slaving away for STEM oligarchs?

...

Are the cartoons having a sex party?

The hilarity of this is that you end up with the high achieving women just offloading their parental duties onto lower status women. It will be women, too. Women overwhelmingly and aggressively gatekeep the primary caregiver role.

In the end, liberal feminism does lots to rehabilitate CEOs and capitalist values, effectively making corporations into the arbiters and standard bearers of progress while doing nothing for the average woman except telling her to 'learn to code', which is late capitalist for 'go fuck yourself'

All forms of oppression stem from classist oppression. That isn't to say the problems of trans people aren't problems, it is just that their problems are not the main problems that we should be concerned with.

When the day-care center is integrated in the workplace, they are within walking distance. A feature of capitalism is the seperation of labor from social life, this would provide a way to overcome this alienation and in the process would stop imposing the choice "work or family" on women, as well as increase their perspectives due to not having maternity leave which results in lower pay and so on.
Where did I say that child care workers can't be men? Retard. Also, I'm not talking about the overachieving CEO business woman, just woman who want to perform good at their work.
Did it maybe occur to you that this has biological reasons?

Blah blah blah. Address the fucking point rather than waffling, gobshite.
You didn't. The point I was making and you tacitly concede later is that it won't be.
Blah blah blah. Someone still gets lumped with shitty nappy duty, right?
The cause is neither here nor there. This is also a tacit admission of my argument.

How is this not adressing your point? You didn't make a very elaborate one.
What is your problem then? Why do you think day care workers are "underclass"? In socialism nurses, carer for the elderly, day care workers, etc. are appreciated. It's not my fault capitalism treats social workers like dogshit.
I actually oppose quotas. What is your point? You seem to be overly triggered by the fact women's liberation is a part of communism.
Your blabber makes you look bad, bub. You havn't made an argument, you just sperged out.

the presumption that they're being 'taught' anything is odd and stupid.

but why do gay people insist on dragging children to the sex parade? isn't it rather suspicious? and why do all gross fetishes suddenly become progressive and good when those poor oppresed gays do it?

Feminism liberation occured many decades a go. It's a non issue. Feminists want power, not equality, if you want equality you'd call yourself a humanist

Trans people is an american invention and therefore are a consequence of capitalism. They will receive the propper medical treatment eventually

tell me where he taught you

it's fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain this woman is forcefeeding her toddler tumblr hashtags in order to get on the media and virtue signal. lgbt cultists will deny this, tho.

metronews.ca/news/halifax/2017/02/06/gender-nonconforming-kid-elliott-educate-pop-up-school.html

this but unironcally

what are the children being taught here?

the gays are absolutely indoctrinating children and it's unquestionably a good thing

woah so diverse and progresive
youtube.com/watch?v=LcqYHKV6-1Y

this rules

Obviously. Disney's most risqué work.

I pity that child…being fed with literal capitalist garbage such as fucking Beyonce, damn. American globalism is a fucking desease corrupting everybody

for real tho, what

You seem to have missed that the whole promise of """liberating women""" was to release women from the drudgery of this sort of domestic labour.
Who wipes the arses then? If there's no economic coercion, how do you make sure babies are not left to fester in their rotten nappies?
The rest of your post is just whining about not indulged in spurious and diversionary gasbagging.

I've used this line plenty of times with geriatric social conservatives too, but it really isn't the epic own you think it is. There are plenty of people from comfortable, safe, financially secure families living comfortable, safe, financially secure lives for whom identities like this are just a toy. They are not in any serious danger of facing any physical, social or financial consequences regardless of what fashionable deviant identity they become infatuated with and assume. Getting gushing comments on their selfies, a community of people to affirm their every affected neurosis and a pity party for every weird look they get when they go slumming in a greasy fastfood joints' gendered bathroom literally are the pressing concerns of their lives.

back when i was young it was fashionable among these people to be "gay" - these were kind of people who were very excited about "queer theory" and telling elaborate stories about the disappointment they experienced when coming out to their families who were too cosmopolitan to give them the personal drama they craved. these were the people who never even had to think about concealing their identities, watching what they said, how they dressed or who they were seen with. they were never the people who had to hear "queer" screamed at them while having their ribs kicked in because they were seen with a "known poofter". and these were the people who became the face of the "gay and lesbian community" right up until the point where they settled down and married somebody of the opposite sex like they were always going to or got bored and moved onto the next big thing.

well, guess what, now being "trans" is the fashionable new thing for the bored kids of well-to-do families. They have the luxury of being able to doctor-shop until they find one who will just agree with whatever they say and prescribe whatever they want as long as the bill is paid at the end of the session and have social circles that will adulate their every "brave" comment and commiserate over their every "struggle" with finding an expensive dress to accommodate their shoulders. For my sins, I'm established enough in my cities LGBT scene to have personally seen and met the dozens of new """trans""" women that have appeared lately and I would bet good money that not a one of them actually experiences dysphoria or could even give a coherent account of what dysphoria even is. 99% of the population hating them or thinking they're a freak doesn't matter (or is even part of the attraction) because their social position means their lives will never be seriously negatively impacted by it.

welcome to the club of middle class identity tourism. enjoy.

Working in a day-care center isn't domestic labor you spaz. The idea was that a housewife would get compensation for her work so she isn't dependent on the income of her man. Same with housemen.
Why the actual fuck do you imply that there would be no incentives provided for people to do socially necessary jobs that aren't everyone's favorite activity? How do you think you get someone clean a pipe in socialism?
Why are you so emotional about this, bub?

You are a real faggot, arent you?

Liberation means even more drudgery than before, just you get paid by porky for it. Like I said, it's hilarious. Also, you've started throwing insults then proceed to accuse me of being emotional.
Economic coercion.

So what is your point then? Do you want to replace day care workers with nursery robots? Do you want to revivie muh traditional family? I'm listening.
Sorry for not being able to abolish labor right away, unless we have Star Trek tier replicators you need to provide incentives. And yes, labor vouchers are also incentives.
Because you act obnoxious.

Merely that the promises made by the likes of yourself are hollow. Remember your words:
Looks you want like exactly the same shitty system rich women already have under capitalism, regardless of those denials. Like I said, it's amusing, as the complaint is unresolvable and those making it almost certainly know as much, but the promise has already been made…
Yes. People who visibly engage in bad faith elicit that kind of response.

How? Many women who lived in the GDR say that the sense of alienation and antagonism between motherhood and labor was greatly diminished. Why do you think we can't progress beyond the traditional family as a form of societal organization? You havn't given me an alternative btw, despite me asking you about it a couple of times.
In socialism you don't have rich women. Get a grip dude. How do I want the exact same system? I want self-sustainable workspaces, where there is no longer a seperation between private life and labor.
Where have I been arguing in bad faith? All you do is vomit out cryptic responses without making a point.

Bad faith argumentation example 1: Continues to demand solution to problem I was openly stated I consider unsolvable.
Bad faith argumentation example 2: I was quite careful back in state the problem was the offloading of the childcare duties "onto lower status" women, given that not everyone has the prerequisite abilities to be a rocket scientist, nor will society need many of them.
Bad faith argumentation example 3: The point has already been made that the labour will be placed on the less able women. Persists in ignoring this.
Bad faith argumentation example 4: Jump on a soap box a gasbag about something utterly unrelated but that you'd like to talk about, just like the politicians on TV.

I hate being a leaf sometimes.

So you concede you don't even talk about the same thing or have a relevant opinion about it but keep sperging out about it. Okay. You might as well be from Holla Forums at this point.
Status is pretty irrelevant under socialism. Everybody can draw from the means of consumption the same way. It is still a horrible strawman because you keep assuming I'm talking about capitalism, whilst I'm clearly not.
And? Seriously, what's your point? When no more rocket scientists are needed, you won't be able to study it. Problem solved.

Gender is not people it's grammar. Judging from your use of the phrase "gender role" and its origin in the French language you ought to know better.

Women were forbidden to work as actors until just a few hundred years ago. Before then young men played the role of women on stage. Unmarried lesbians were always accused of being witches. Even widows who did not remarry were accused of being witches.
"TERFs" are correct in that third-wave feminism ultimately seeks to delegitimize females at the biological level. Abortions destroy the womb, and lefties want nothing more than to disengage the wombs of as many lower-class ("unfit") women as possible.

Can someone explain what they have against TERFs without mentioning their feelings?

TERFs assert that a person has to have a woman's body to be oppressed as a woman. When a TERF says that a trans person isn't a woman, this is what they mean. In any way that being a woman has meaning you are not a woman. It's not about beauty standards or whether people shouldn't beat you up on the street. It's about the material origin of oppressions.

That's right, you don't know so just shut the fuck up with your liberal nonsense.

TERF's are the eternal jew of SJW's, the enemy inside, an ideological necessity. They are singled out for this because they represent the contradiction of SJW'ism; that you are whatever you feel like and that whatever you feel like is due to oppression.

top fucking kek. masterful analysis user

This, to be quite honest.

"TERFs" are literally just feminists who follow feminist theory to its logical conclusions

actually maybe I should say that TERFs are just the feminists who have even actually read feminist theory and understood it to some extent

Which feminist theory do you have in mind?

From what I understand of Judith Butler, in "Gender Trouble" she is arguing against any kind of "female subject" that can be the basis of feminism. Her "feminist theory" amounts to completely erasing women as a political subject, because all gender is simply a performance and therefore there is nothing to distinguish an actual woman from someone who does a really good job acting like one.

I'm actually surprised that as many feminists went along with this as they did, because if I understand it correctly this means completely removing "female" from feminism and replacing it with anything and everything.

Acting like the male fantasy of women more like, there's a reason why trannies are subject of heterosexual fantasy while being absent in gay fantasy.

is joke

I'm thinking more along the lines of Hanisch, Brownmiller, Millett, Friedan et al. Even former darling and now arch-TERF herself Germaine Greer. You could add Dworkin, but I'm pretty she's a joke even among feminists.

Obviously there are different schools of thought and the movement itself has never been very coherent - and my comment was mostly facetious. But there definitely does seem to be a bias among the current crop of self-identified feminists toward never reading fucking anything except listicles on everydayfeminism.

for someone who hates individualism i can't believe i'm going to make this case:
this whole approach of being oppressed as an xyz is stupid. everyone has an individual experience of oppression on the basis of collective characteristics. when you are perceived as a woman and the social structures used against women are used against you, the fact you actually have a penis means nothing and certainly doesn't mean the oppression goes away.

in a broader sense i hate exclusionary behaviour except people i don't consider fully human like Holla Forums users and TERFism is exclusionary behaviour. What are the children being taught here?

there exists a high possibility this yields better results than reading tomes though. enough of theory let's have some action.

These are all second-wave feminist theorists though right? So it would seem that Judith Butler is the key turning point into third-wave feminism, where if you stuck with 2nd wave then you are labelled a TERF.

I wonder if there are any post-second wave feminist theorists who argue against Butler and for the idea that women are actually materially real and not just a pure social construct.

what do you mean i'm not a veteran, i'm being perceived as such when i show people all the medals i ordered on aliexpress so that i never served means nothing really

stupid analogy
if i pass over a transgender person for a job because i'm a sexist and i don't know they're transgender, that's oppression as function of their perception as a woman.

by analogy to the specific situation this would be more like being beaten up by hippies for wearing your aliexpress medals because they hate warmonging generals.
which would be a pretty funny situation.

no thanks. given the effects that feminist involvement has had even on idpol movements that directly relate to my particular minority identity, i prefer to have feminists shamed into locking themselves away with dusty books and endlessly contemplating the nature of womanhood as far away from everything as possible.

If simply asserting that a trans woman is not identical to a woman who was born as a woman gets you labelled a TERF, is it necessarily exclusionary? In fact this could lead to better analysis of oppression because a trans woman is not perceived as a woman so oppression against them is not identical to the oppression against a biological woman.

I can see that probably in a lot of cases asserting non-identity of biological and trans women goes hand in hand with discrimination and exclusionary behavior towards trans women, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing or should be treated as such.

it would also be oppression as function of their perception as a veteran.

yes, to use language means to exclude

TERFs are conservatives who like feminism. they worked with neocons in the 80s to take away healthcare from trans people because trannies don't believe in their gender essentialism spooks.

noice gondola

I imagine many of them would dispute that discrete "waves" of feminism are even a thing, but yes. I'm honestly not super familiar with Butler so you may be right - it's been a long time since I was enamored with feminist theory and I have a feeling that she was one of the ones I just skimmed toward the end of my feminist bender when my bullshit tank was starting to overflow.

yes, but the important question is whether such exclusionary assertions are necessary and often they aren't. sometimes something may be true, but to speak it is a social and tactical signpost of undesirability.

let us consider: perhaps stalin did kill 11 billion people, but those who would raise this point in a debate between socialists and capitalists are a liability. this is a fact that should remain unspoken, regardless of truth value, due to context.

this would seem highly contextual. what would be more apt would be the intersection between oppression as a trans woman and oppression as a perceived woman, which is why inevitably oppression will spiral almost down into individual categories (because only those who pass can experience the latter, for example.)

correct. it did not matter that they were not a veteran for a function of experiencing that situation, in the material facts of the case.
(there are perhaps some psychological considerations - but this spirals things down further towards the individual level. i.e. a veteran will think "i fought for these people" as the fists connect while a cosplayer will think "fuck shit i knew i should've gone as a nazi")

i see, so they really are veterans, and anyone who says they aren't is a bigot and veteranphobe.

you can decide for yourself whether you really are mentally impaired, because i'm about to discriminate against you in the same fashion regardless.

you make me roll my eyes like only a bored girl can, so watch your pronouns when you post at me like that

Agreed that when people offer this assertion it is often a sign of exclusion and undesirability. But you are agreeing that trans women are not identical to biological women then? How is it sustainable to believe on one level something is true but no one is allowed to say that it is? This seems like a recipe to generate reaction to me, because if people feel forced by their peer group to say 2 + 2 = 5 even though no one actually believes this, its kinda creepy and cultish. Even if asserting that 2 + 2 = 4 were often associated with being exclusionary to 5, maybe instead of censoring people for asserting the truth, we should create a different signpost of meaning and associate the assertion of the true statement 2 + 2 = 4 with not being exclusionary.

This case is actually a lot like the above, and I am someone who will point out that Stalin killed a lot of people (above a million, does it really matter what the exact number is?). Again, if this is true but no one is allowed to say so, how is that not a recipe for reaction? If only reactionaries are saying it because they are the only ones allowed to, then of course it will have reactionary connotations. But I don't see how we can build an honest left-wing movement that gains people's trust if there's a skeleton that big in our closet that no is addressing.

I'm saying it's a highly contextual question.

With great ease. Sometimes the facts have little material impact on the present situation. In such situations, there is little need to articulate those facts. It is in many ways a simple economic calculation. It's not the case that "no one" can say it, but who-and-when can say it is contextually key, and those who get the "who" or the "when" wrong will be punished.

On both matters of reaction - those 'reacting' are usually those with objections to the new order rather than those concerned with some beautiful reality. It is one thing to enumerate Stalin's crimes against comrades, and quite another to "hand ammunition to the other side." even if the facts have not changed. We are not dealing with a dry scientific topic here, but much more fluid human ones. The facts of - say- Cecil Rhodes life have not changed, but we change our perceptions and which facts we decide to draw on when describing it. This too causes reaction - but generally, more explicitly, by reactionaries. Those who prefer the old caricature of reality to the new.

I would consider this in some ways a form of self censorship just as great as tactfully declining to articulate irrelevant counter-facts, although this is a valid strategy. One must of course ask why 2+2=4 is being raised to begin with. (There does exist for example a case that it is purely to exclude 5, and that there is no relevant reason to care, where the inclusion of 5 or even the skewing of numbers would cause no harm.)

most people are too stupid (or more aptly, disinterested) to know who the prime minister was 10 years ago, let alone the crimes of a long dead man in a foreign country. What is the relevance of Stalin to a modern, non ML socialist movement? Why bring up Stalin except to slander on the basis of 'socialism?' (I must re-emphasise that in the context being used here is one where capitalists who will oppose any socialist movement are around. If they raise Stalin, to engage is perhaps necessary - but to raise Stalin yourself is a grave tactical misstep even if what you say is true.)

In many ways I am not advocating a system so much as saying part of how the extant system works and how a tactical game is to be played. You cannot play politics, indeed, you cannot really play human interaction at all with a dogged commitment to always stating the facts.

Does this post make me look fat?

More bad faith argument
Later
A quota system.
Translation: "Appraisals of the problem I disapprove of are invalid and also mean you are a nazi".
Translation: "I'm going to deliberately misrepresent you"
Quoting materials unrelated to """women's liberation""" and which did not make those promises.
Overt lie.

it's trans people who push gender essentialism. there's nothing conservative about feminism, it has barely gotten off the ground yet

No offence but you're joking right. There are two issues with this. For one no one sees MTF trans people as women. Then there's the other part, MTF trans people will have the same rights under the law that men have.

You are not being attacked for being women. Whether it's right or wrong people respond to trans people as they do pedophiles, not as women.

There are material reasons for any non-mainstream sexual orientation to be suppressed spontaneously by society but for the most part this only has one purpose: for men to own women. Men do violence to men in this respect, trans people are no different here. There is no difference between a homosexual and a trans man to the average man who has internalized patriarchy.

You simply aren't physically women so patriarchy doesn't care about you as women, since patriarchy created women it owns the concept and you are not woman. That's literally it.

>>>I N C L U S I O N

you're talking about a category, i'm talking about an individual. plenty of individual MTF trans are seen as women.
information asymetry means a given transwoman can be perceived as a from-birth woman because not all the facts are available to the individual or collectivity making the judgement. until that information asymmetry is resolved, there is no difference.
(A passing transwoman rejected for an engineering job because the hirer doesn't think women are good engineers, for example, has been rejected on the basis of "being a woman" since the person doing the hiring cannot consider the "born a man" element of the equation, as they do not possess this information.)

i'm not sure if some kind of fools gold analogy would be of any aid here. men may well kill one another over fools gold, plot all sorts of schemes to obtain it - even if in the end, with full information, they learn they have an object of no value.

also i'm not sure if i should take your use of "you" to imply that i'm transgender. (i'm not.)

>>>I N C L U S I O N

No. Plenty of "TERFs" recognize that. Most feminists are no strangers to feelings of inadequacy and self-loathing, and men who think they're women are sympathized for. Gender critical perspectives just disagree with the conclusions that these men reach.

See my post

LET THERE BE VULVAS! shazam!

...

...

Why are you so committed to the sleight-of-hand. I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. Women and even MTF who pretend to be women, if they are oppressed for appearing as women, are oppressed because of the essential relationships between men and women as biological entities. Not because some part of the population coincidentally all had the same sexual characteristics and decided to identify as women.

You see the thing about materialism is that your self identification is meaningless. Marx out right says this. From your example of the trans person not being employed as an engineer, all we can say is that they appear as a woman, not that they are a woman. For a woman stands in a definite social relationship to men and other women that an MTF transperson simply doesn't and can't.

Not him, but how this structure changes as biological technology which can change a person's sex materializes is probably the most pressing question about the transexual movement. When men can become women, will they finally care about women's rights? Will they be accepted into the female caste?

They're the negation of the relationship.

Reality is constant slight of hand. Material circumstances are constantly in flux. Relationships are constantly in flux. You don't need conscious decision.

While self identification is naturally part of being trans, a much greater element of my concern is social identification without concern for that. We can conceive situations for androgynous individuals without any gender identity issues too, but these are more contrived and lead to a greater incidence of debating the example.

I would hold that if something appears to be a woman, it is a woman until those appearances no longer hold. This is of course, in reference to the mystified social category of womanhood rather than any given physical criteria. That is to say, the definition of a woman is constantly context-dependent and not always articulable. (Which is part of where the fun of delineating "actual womanhood" comes from, because if you say motherhood you have the infertile, if you say chromosomes you have outlying conditions, and so on and so fourth, because the reality is you're trying to articulate a "you just know" social category.)

i feel some analogy to the DSM is in order.
Until recently, you had all these neat little categories. You had aspergers, autism, PDD-NOS, etc. These were all distinct ways of categorising an underlying behavioural and medical reality, but they created all sorts of arbitrary borders because of social presumptions. (i.e. it was expected that aspergers meant higher functioning, when you could get cases just as bad as those considered autism, with the distinction arising because of how the descriptors were added together. in result, aspergers kids could be rejected for services they needed because those were "autism services" and even if the conditions were recognized as the "autism spectrum" the diagnosis was aspergers.)
then with the DSM-V these were all folded together into a single diagnosis of 'autism spectrum disorder', despite the underlying conditions not changing, despite the only material reality shift being a change on a page, the entire categorisation was altered. Yet despite this, the change filters down, because now rather than trying to split the difference between various similar conditions you can take consideration of the actual problems any given individual shows and provide services on that basis.

it is along a similar basis i would draw this entire thing together on. in part, we could say that this is a purely definitional, linguistic or categorisation argument - but as with the autism example, categorisations are important. (although because i'm eating, I'll avoid trying to contrive some examples of how fluid the autism definition is because it's far too easy to turn it into a series of jokes.)

in an ad-hoc addendum that will undoubtedly get disproportionate engagement if recognized: the problem with materialism is that it doesn't recognize most people aren't materialists and that this impacts the way they behave on a level that can't simply be buffed out of calculation. unless we want to push down to "thoughts are material" levels.)

Mtfs do not negate the material relationship between men and women as castes of people. They create a continuity by which they can obtain womanhood, though they do not achieve it biologically. The material structure of masculinity remains, though on top of it they place a veneer of female bio/cultural-characteristics (breasts, skirts, etc). Basically they're not women in the reproductive sense with which feminism is concerned, so their struggle is not of the right to one's body, but the right to dictate to society the definition of womanhood. They hurt women because their quest to obtain womanhood sets out to redefine it along self-identification, whereas real women experience womanhood as material circumstances surrounding their reproduction. Like capitalists, mtfs commodify womanhood into feminine signifiers in their quest to control its definition. This control is a byproduct of their quest to obtain self-realization and inclusion into the female caste.

Infertility exclusive radical feminism NOW

Not who you're arguing with but if your best response is the intersectionals tactic of playing edge case exceptions as though they somehow disprove broad generalisations about population dynamics, its time you admitted defeat and left.

"the intersectionals"
fucking howling.
defining feminism almost entirely around the single issue of reproductive rights is a laughable strategy all-around. even if we exclude the (surprisingly large segment of the population) """edge cases""", you still wind up well off the mark. although if we could get a new movement called "abortionism" that'd be swell.

voting rights? equal pay? nah just abortions cheers.
i know some chucklefuck will say "unequal pay arose because of the expectation that women will have babies" but that's a half-assed explanation, black men aren't paid less because they're going to go off and have babies. any population "deviant from the norm" is open to this option, even with irishmen decades ago.

This thread needs to watch this
youtube.com/watch?v=dKUWmyRILgc

This is what happens when you never read Marx

You do realise that Zizek himself sympatizes and agrees with Transgender struggles

How is dressing up in rainbows any sign that they want to turn your kids gay

Come back to me when you've got the overwhelming majority of trannies suffering debilitating cramps and are sloughing rotting tissue out their bodies one week in every four. Until then, your side of the argument are full of shit.

touchy

what are the children being taught here?

Wow, you really do hate women.

I said caring only about reproductive rights was laughable, you strawmanning blairite.

wow man, you're showing your true colors

TOPKEK
is this how femoids really argue? No wonder your movements always devolve into 1984 esq witch hunts.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

...

hm i think i see the problem here, those aren't shades those are hues, basic color theory

Wouldn't full utopia Communism just accomplish all their goals anyway?

Just seems like their there to fuck the validity of the movement when fat pink haired Starbuck Marxists seem to be the most popular in the media. Also does anyone have the image with someone telling communists to work out since a fascist worked out today and you need to be fit for the revolution, then someone calls it ableist

my point exactly fam

...