BREAKING: Traps are gay

Feminists do not conflate sex and gender. Sex is a scientific term for ones biology and this cannot be changed. As materialists we believe the root of women’s oppression lies in her biology, a view underpinning socialist theory for generations. Gender theory does not provide an alternative credible analysis and it is regressive. Queer theorists see the intimate connection between biological sex and oppression and react by trying to dismantle the notion of biological sex whilst socialists and feminists react by seeking to dismantle oppression.
>Feminists see gender as a constraint to women who have to adopt feminine behaviours to conform to societies limiting expectations of women’s rightful place. We do not happily acknowledge that feminine stereotypes make a male more womanly or vice versa. Both sexes should be able to express masculine and feminine traits in their sexed body. We are concerned that a change in the law consolidates gender stereotypes.

Other urls found in this thread:

nice spooks nerd

This is when the word spooks lose all power.

There are way more men who want to transition to be women than the other way around
Also gender is a spook go fuck yourself, traps are great.

Trans woman here.

There is no critical thought here, just base arguments. This reads like I don't understand that my dypshoria comes from a structure that genders me, and yes, I *should* be able to express feminity freely in my given body.

However, there is nothing constructive or revolutionary in acting like I should wait for some sort of post-capitalist, post-gender society to understand that gender roles are established and kept in motion. If society forces me to be gendered, then I choose the gender I see fit, which happens to be a woman. In the framework of our current societal structure, I am a 100% more happy with being a trans woman than waiting in misery.

God damn.

Nono, you dont understand. Being trans is actually patriarchy, you problematic shitlord.

You are a no woman, my boy.

Suck my big feminine dick.


Why do we give so much of a fuck about 0.1% of the population? If all the trannies burned tomorrow no one would give a fuck. They're overexposed online ONLY on shithole sites.

It's so bizarre that "trans issues" is even a thing.

No, you deranged faggot.

1. It's maybe a bit of a douchey statement in light of this, but they didn't explicitly state that what you say isn't the case. 2. Artificial dong is harder to make as far as I know, and on average women don't have as much wealth as men, and how much $$$ you have strongly shapes what you aspire to do.

Ahem: "Both sexes should be able to express masculine and feminine traits in their sexed body. We are concerned that a change in the law consolidates gender stereotypes."

This, they’re a small enough issue that we can safely ignore them for now beyond a basic principle of condemning open hostility.

Not an argument. A tiny disputable and frankly false think like a little bit difference in pay doesnt explain the three of fourfold of difference between transitioning mtf and ftm. Especially considering this is still the case in places with more egalitarian distributions of wealth and cheap and universal healthcare. And lets ignore that it is way easier for females to transition for anything but a slong, because male hormones change can give you irreversable male bone features on your face, while slightly wider hips are easier to cover up and tits can be cut off easily.

And even then, the only reason the post of OP was made was to use ftm people to further their TERF agenda.

f. Not an argument.

how do i filter your retarded spam

Only problem is biological sex is a fucking spook, other than maybe the sexual role one has in reproduction. Regardless, even using that as a basis to define one's sex in a scientific sense is a fucking construction, so basically their argument isn't valid at the core. Perceived sex and perceived gender are essentially the different sides to a coin; only the latter apparently has some psychological importance, and thus has human importance.

Once again the above, but why is it unscientific thinking, and why is "unscientific thinking" bad? You aren't making a claim to it being anti-empirical [because you would lose, as people who gender themselves to be transgender are observable], but rather to the field of science, as if said field is not both constructed and constantly being re-adjusted to fit our models of data.

Le Robespierre "despotism of liberty against tyranny" face. Why the fuck are you against 'authoritarianism' in a general sense if you are a Marxist anyways?

Lastly, why is it that the people who claim to be "scientific" know absolutely nothing about science? Oh yeah, because brain dead hegelians want to mask their metaphysics behind a veil of empiricism, and act like creationists because of it.

t. Person who is actually interested in the Philosophy of Science, instead of being a dialectically challenged moron who swims in circles.

Biological sex is a spook aside from what it describes? *DSP voice* Wooooooooooooooooooow. Mind blown. Fuckhead.
So the argument is invalid because they are using language. Wow.
And there's a guy, observable in this world, who says that on every level except physical he's a wolf. You don't know what empirically verifying is.
Why lie about that?

Express yourself however you like; it doesn't make you a woman.

Point to the spook in this molecule, please.

Transmisogini shall not be tolerated. Get out TERF.

What else could destroy the left from the inside?

The problem is 'what it describes' isn't as important as what it doesn't fucking describe fuckhead. Most people associate biological sex to be some sort of duality, when in fact it's a complete jungle of different chromosome arrangements. Sure the male female dichotomy might be sound as a 'general rule', but they aren't claiming it is a general rule. They are claiming it is an objective truth.

The argument is unsound because they are making an objective claim based on an entirely subjective premise. The statement might be analytically true, but it certainly isn't reflective of real world properties.

Really? I didn't even bother to claim that said transgender pepes are actually 'male or female' brains or whatever the fuck you imbecilic cocaine nose wants to strawman it as. Since gender is constructed, said people construct themselves as 'male' or 'female' or ect as opposed to what would be constructed for them given perceived gender. The 'example' you gave is making a specific claim about his spiritual/mental state of being, which is entirely different.

Why pretend you know what you are fucking talking about, or have studied the topic in any more depth than "lol social justice warriors don't think science is real".

Sure. The spook is you think the only results it puts out are XX and XY, and that these chromosome are a perfect reflection of what sexual traits the person in question will have. Please actually try next time.



Male and female bodies are different, in case you don't know. Brain size and neural connexions, percentage of the body mass that is muscle, almost all bones, body temperature at night, capability for abstraction or 3 dimensional representation and so on. It don't stop at biological factors. Culture play a role too, like the place in the sexual market. Women go on top as soon as they hit 18 and decay, men have to build it if they don't want to stay at 0. Men would gladly fuck a 5, women would rather wait for a 9.
Women get pampered for all the first half of their life and men have to make a place for themselves.

At the end, you have 2 distinguishable set of people, boyish tomboys are still women and metrosexuels are still men. There is also some mentally ill people who think they are Napoleon, Jesus, extraterrestrial beings or other silly things.

No you fucking retard, as materialists we believe the root of women's oppression lies in her social class.

So, now that some women own the means of production, the gender divide is gone?

You already defined transition as only bottom surgery.

Do women equally own the means of production at this moment? No. Is there therefore a devide? Yes. Does that mean its not rooted in class? No.

So, when genders and races own the means of production proportionally, you will have no problem with capitalism?

Grasping at straws here mate, jesus christ. You were the one putting non-class devide over class.
Capitalism is always bad because it has class. And there will always be other devides that result from class under capitalism.

There will always be other divides anyway.

The fact that some people might be born blind or missing an arm doesnt mean we should just let unneeded injustices exist.

Large number of people will never hold their hand and cheer and dance all day.They will always be groups in the population to organize so they would have a better condition than the majority even if that mean at the depend of the others.

In the specific case of the gender gap, this is not even what happen. Men produce 30% more values and get 30% more money.


Why else do you think women get paid less? Because of some shady conspiracy in the entire world? Because greedy porky would rater loose money than hire women?

1. I dont think they do, women work in lesser paid fields and work less hours on avarage, as well as losing out on career advancement because of this part time work and childcare which is still overwhelmingly female. In higher paid fields, all this downtime and choosing the family over the job takes a toll on climbing the corporate ladder and means losing out on pay increases.
2. Because people do not get paid more in jobs based on their individual performance, it is not measurable outside of a few specific jobs, they are all paid according to the market value of their labour, the lowest a capitalist can get away with.

So, if you give more value to the boss, you can ask for a raise using the threat of going somewhere else and you get paid more?

Whoa, it's like you get more money when you work more efficiently.


Houses does not appear for no reasons. You need land, which is in finite quantity. You need a lot of materials, and that cost money. You need a lot of people to work a lot so the house get built. You need to maintain the house and that is not free either.

The landlord have costs and take the risk of having a bad renter who won't pay and will destroy everything. If he is asking for too much, no one will rent.

This is not 1900, you don't make big money by renting proprieties. You make big money by buying proprieties and selling. Look at Trump. e bought and sold things all the time instead of just renting them.

Theres no other places you will get paid more because measure in a modern capitalist firm is not measurable.

Ha I fucking wish, you only get a pat on the back.

I don't know about you, but that's how I get raises every year.

Great argument…
Riddle me this: Some landlords own pieces of land with nothing on it. Is the square meter of empty land worth the same everywhere, city and rural? If not, why not?

Do you produce more and more very year?

I won't get a proper answer, so I might as well do it myself. The thing is: The landlord benefits from the development by economic actors, public and private, in the vicinity of the land. Adding a bus stop near a property increases its value. Clean streets are good for the value, a park nearby is good for the value, and so on. The landlord greatly benefits from this, an unearned increase. (Of course, the idea that a landlord actively works building a house is quite often horseshit to, and the bigger a playa he is, the horsiershittier it is, but we don't even need to go into that.)

And there is a parallel to the women's issue here. Women do a lot of unpaid labor that is absolutely necessary to keep society going, to produce human beings. I don't just mean producing as in being baby dispensers here, I mean actually raising kids and turning them into socialized young adult human beings. And even not so young adults still depend on women, and with very old people or during illness it is also taken for granted that women are the number one caregivers. The capitalist class as a whole benefits from this, but the individual capitalist isn't suddenly paying for all that work of a women when hiring her, since the change is only about hiring a part of that woman, he (or sometimes her, but most likely a man) passively receives already a part of her work. Just like the landlord passively gets this, how to call it, social value from productivity around the plot of land he owns.

And this brings me to the "trap" issue: If mtf people aren't socialized to become women during their childhood and teenage years, and don't get pregnant (currently not possible, this might change soon, though there seems very little interest in it), and are basically only interested in replicating the flirting/boinking part of the men-women equation – then in terms of this sexist structure they have to deal with, I'd say it's only like a shadow of the beast that, ahem, normal women have to live with. (If they pass as women, that is. If they don't pass, then they have to deal with a lot of shit, but that shit is sooo completely different from what women have to deal with, that again I don't see how that fits well into feminism, which is about the general generic issues of men-women relations, sorry guys.)

Women's dominant responsibility for childcare is something women, via feminist organizations, have actively fought for and are still actively engaged in preserving.