hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
If you think your coworker is a weird pervert then you need to take that issue up with your supervisor. Not wave it around as a hypothetical at the expense of human rights for trans people.
Restrooms aren't just a place of vulnerability for women. They are also a place of vulnerability for trans people. There need to be some pretty strong material arguments made for why trans people should be barred from the bathrooms of their experienced sex that go beyond TERF'ist misandry. That is, if we want to ground our position in reality rather than phobia.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to say “this guy just said he was a woman two minutes ago for the first time, so sorry granny, he gets to be in your changing room and see you naked.” With a process that involves time and effort, I get it.
Gender dysphoria and being trans is not treated with 'two minute' levity anywhere I know of.
This is, in my mind, one of the great unsung tragedies of the rise of the trans movement.
'Real women' being hurt by the trans movement is not an unsung tragedy. It's the fife and drums of transphobia everywhere. Especially when it's coming from women.
Sports in general and the Olympics in particular have always had a large gray area when it comes to innate physical differences between competitors. Doesn't matter if its male/female or, thick or thin, tall or short. Instead of going into these differences in more detail the Olympics decide to live in muddy waters, which allows for incidents such as these.
In a broader context I find it hard to sympathize with anyone even remotely attaching themselves to this nonsense. People want things to 'stay the same' and not change whilst society around them is in the process of ditching whatever quaint conservatism they still hold on to. Whatever purity or sanctity is imagined to live within the Olympics is long gone or in the process of being removed. I mean, who knew the Swedes had such a knack for the long jump?
To an extent I agree with you. If seeing women getting hurt activates some almonds and folks want the display to stop, that's fine. But to pretend this is about sports or the sanctity of categories or whatever is just inane at this point.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
We didn't go full Australia on Covid lockdowns.
Neither did Canada.
We are still allowed to own guns.
So are Canadians.
The state only takes 35% of our income instead of 50%
Again, look at Canada.
All involved are neck deep in mass immigration. I'm not seeing the boomer utility here.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Cases of criminals raping their fellow inmates is not an argument against trans rights any more than interracial rape is an argument against civil rights.
If you want to argue that being raped by penis is worse than something else, you should start by looking at men's prisons. If you want to argue rape in general is the problem, female inmates rape eachother more than male inmates.
Individual cases are irrelevant to the scope of the discussion, which is human rights for trans people. When we are talking about prison populations and criminals the discussion will get dragged into an unsavory quagmire with a lot of negative connotations that transphobic people try to associate with the concept of trans rights. This is a dishonest guilt by association tactic that's not relevant to the actual discussion of the topic. Proven by the fact that people refuse to engage in similar rhetoric regarding race.
I'm not surprised people object when they don't know what trans rights are, nor what transphobia is. The modern prison system is a crime against humanity. It places people in terrible conditions that facilitate further suffering and strife to no one's benefit. Those who choose to argue against trans rights rather than argue in favor of a better prison system betray their transphobic bias and abdicate any moral highground they may have pretended to occupy.
But that's what a trans person is and that's what trans rights are in practice. Anyone who is squeamish about these things is by definition transphobic. As well as being, pardon my French, hysterical and ridiculous. As if your male coworkers suddenly turn into a physical danger as soon as you have to share a porcelain bowl...
There's an entire progressive dialect invented to get past these hurdles. Followed by a ruleset that should allow any well-meaning actor, who is concerned with the rights of trans people, to get along with their day without allowing their transphobia to negatively affect trans people as they try to exist.
Unisex toilets exist all over the world. This is transphobia masquerading as misandry. It should not be allowed to stand in any case if we are holding ourselves to any egalitarian modern standard.
There's nothing nasty about making fun of the people who practice murdering their children so they can continue having careless sex with no consequences.
What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean? As you said yourself, "bodily autonomy" arguments are vapid. Laws are made that govern this type of stuff. It' already 'your body, my choice' and it always has been. Why sanctify the democrat crocodile tears by buying into the idea that 'your body, my choice' is a nasty thing to say? Oh, you can't have unprotected sex and then murder a baby to rid yourself of the consequences of your good time? Boohoo.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Not understanding something doesn't make it bad. Racists otherize non-whites. Transphobes otherize trans people. You assert that trans people "can't" access sex segregated areas. Just like a racist asserted black people can't access race segregated areas. History tells us how that story ends. I briefly touched on why history is moving in this direction, using the historical analogy of civil rights as an example. That being said, Trans people and black people are not the same, but pointing that out when it's not relevant to the point being made is fruitless.
The trans movement seeks to insert a 'third' or more categories and break the sex binary where needed. To that extent the trans movement is categorically less radical than the civil rights movement. To follow the black/white analogy, it only seeks to assert a minority be counted as a different race. Sometimes the abolition of certain race defined aspects of western society is deemed to be what is best for society. Sometimes 'positive' segregation is deemed to be the best.
By the same token, as societal rules and norms based on race can exist in a good or a bad way, gender and gender expression can be set up in a good way or a bad way. Trans rights seek to make them more good than bad for trans people. You might say they are wrong, or making things bad for other groups, but, again, that same argument was levied by racists in the 50's and 60's. Given the track record of such arguments, coming from people with no power or any mainstream moral weight of support behind them, I'm still left wondering why you even imagine anyone should take your assertions with any weight.
Hopefully this helps elucidate the point of the analogies.
Now, to broach a wider topic of contention and why being against trans rights is being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason:
Society has a bias. It's biased against certain ideas in favor of others. This bias is not coincidental. There's a fabric of logic* (excuse the poetry)* that this bias is woven on to. I don't care for arguments against threads being woven into the fabric when that's exactly what this fabric is made for. It's all it will ever do.
Or maybe you prefer a different description of this phenomenon? The progressive arch of history? Robert Conquest's Second Law? Cthulu always swims left?
I'm not arguing from a position of personal moral claims. I'm just looking at the fabric and what's been sewn into it. I then see people wrapped in the fabric telling me they're against the very thing they're wearing.
I'm arguing from the perspective of the totality of institutional power, the direction of media and propaganda, the whole modern western canon as it exists living and breathing today. From that perspective you are wrong. You are against morality, rationality and reason. Just like the previous villains of history.
The right to express their gender identity. It's the abolition of biological sex as a negative delineator for trans people. Just like race was abolished as a negative delineator for black people.
Civil rights didn't end race based welfare programming. You can still have black only spaces and programs. Just not white ones. This is universally celebrated as a good thing by everyone except racists.
I think it would make the trans activists dishonest, rather than the argument.
We've gone from "some" to all. This is very transparent and irrelevant to the argument, outside of demonstrating that you and others do exactly what I said you were trying to do. Making irrelevant negative associations.
If a policy is allowed to go through, partly on the grounds that it will not cause specific side effects, and those specific side effects do materialize, it is an honest argument against the policy.
I never argued that X would never happen. Many trans activists never argued that. How about you deal with what's actually being said rather than fighting strawmen? It's such an irrelevant strawman at that. Women in womens prisons also rape eachother.
There are costs to any policy. So far society sees fit to pay for mass immigration and desegregation with the rape of men, women and children. The alleged cost of this policy is dwarfed by those, yet you will find no transphobe arguing against desegregation on the basis of the catastrophic amounts of rape, robberies and murder that have happened because of it. You are presenting an inconsistent and irrational defense of boundaries that keep a tiny minority of people from living better lives.
A quick sanity check - would you consider the UK raoe gang scandal a crime against humanity?
Yes. Inflicting conditions upon people that lead to inescapable circumstance that facilitate rape of the defenseless by a hostile group and the systemic blocking of any recourse they might have to be defended by the law is, in my view, a clear example of such a thing.
Everything? Just the mere act of keeping them off the streets already requires enacting suffering.
The mechanism that reduces crime is taking these people away from the public. Rape, torture and murder are not a necessary component of that mechanism.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
With supporters like these, who needs enemies. The point is that you don't cave in, instead you show you actually stand behind the thing in its moment of weakness. Precisely because it's being attacked by your enemy.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
What everyone believes of themselves is irrelevant to the fact of the matter. But taking what you say into account, with reporting that has just been displayed here, I'm confident in my statement, comparatively.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just relaying the rules to people who have apparently been hiding under a rock for the past decades. White solidarity is racist. Black solidarity is not. That's what 80% of people believe. Hell, that number is probably higher with just the tiniest amount of moralistic framing from mainstream media outlets.
I do operate under the belief that I am talking with people who agree with the orthodoxy given that, from my personal estimation, I could count the number of people here who are against desegregation on one hand. I also operate under the belief I am talking with misandrist feminists in denial. As the only way to get these people to care about the rape and torture chambers we call prisons is to couch the debate in terms of women suffering, rather than men. To that extent not a single person has demonstrated to be anything other than what I assume them to be.
On that basis I argue that trans rights are human rights. I give no personal weight to these concepts. I just hate hypocrisy. Especially when it owes its existence to a lack of consideration for what is going on, and has been going on, in the western world. The aforementioned 80% don't deserve to pretend that they are anything other than what they are. The generations before them had to do the humiliation ritual of their time. Now it's this generations turn. That is what the dominant system that they support demands of them. Whining about it isn't brave, rational or even tantamount to qualifying as 'disagreement'. It's just hypocritical ignorance waiting to be crushed by the system. A valuable lesson for future generations, just like the opponents of civil rights in the past serve as a valuable lesson for the current one.
And a racist is not sure if black people are actually people. Trans people can and will get access to sex-segregated spaces just like black people got access to white only spaces. The dominant anthropological view in the west facilitates both and negates anything else. Your assertions to the contrary are not relevant since they are negated by society at large. It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space. Those are the demonstrated values. You can claim dissidence, but you can't make assertions that go against these values and expect them to hold any weight.
DEI and CRT drama is irrelevant. There was a lot more pushback against civil rights than there's been against CRT or DEI. People had to be put to the barrel of a gun to accept that.
Trans rights are about trans rights. They don't need to be anything else. You have men and women, and also trans people. If the boundaries break down further, you will have something else. Just like America now has a lot more mix raced people than before. The aftermath of a successful struggle for human rights is never an argument against it.
Forget about the trans stuff for a moment. Why do you think we separate men from women in prisons and other facilities?
A historical artifact of a European monoethnic patriarchal society. The prison system is broken. You can argue for the separation of men and women, just like you can argue for the separation of black and white or tall and short or strong and weak. But so long as the reason for those arguments is not based on safety and reduction of suffering, and instead tethered to misandry and transphobia, you have no rational leg to stand on.
And if you want to argue for it, you should be upfront about the costs, so people can make the cost-benefit analysis themselves.
I have done nothing else. On the flipside, I take it you are in favor of desegregation and argue that the fallout has been worth it for the benefit of anti-racism and human rights? Oh, right, that's not how things work. No one who argues for anything like that does so on the basis of its cost/benefit. It's about what's morally right and wrong.
I don't see it what way it is either inconsistent or irrational, and the tiny minority doesn't get to impose it's will on everybody else, just because it will make them feel better.
Trans rights aren't just a matter of importance for trans people. They are of importance to any person who recognizes the modern western world order. Being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason. As you can not draw a line in the sand now against trans rights without that line intersecting with other human rights. Like civil rights.
Sure, but people are not sentenced to rape as an official part of their punishment. Rapes happen because of what prisoners do to each other, and if they can't respect their own rights, there's only so far I'm willing to go to protect them from themselves.
You could use this exact argument in favor of trans women in womens prison. This cavalier morally neutral tone doesn't work after you just took a grand stand on the suffering of female prisoners at the hands of trans women. If you don't care about the suffering of prisoners you don't belong in this conversation at all.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I'm not seeing the problem.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
And what framing is that? That the republicans are going to control women's bodies? Isn't that what they are doing?
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I feel like Donald Trump being good at golf is like Hitler being an animal lover. "See! He wasn't all bad..."
As for that, I don't think it matters a whole lot. The general blue-ish public is likely not going to stumble upon political content about Trump that's not negative. Media polarization and algorithmic bubbles do a powerful job. If you like Trump you can like him more. If you dislike Trump you can dislike him more.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
The US is no better off than Canada on the immigration front, where 25% of the US population is now hispanic or Asian. Demographic projections are only going one way.
I don't care if you think Canada's gun control laws are 'extreme'. The fact is you can buy an 'assault rifle' in Canada. It might have a 10 round mag and your selection is more limited, but it's a rifle all the same. The rest is semantics.
I really don't sympathize with pretending
No one does. Which is why the feeling is so mutual. Americans are great at isolating themselves from the world around them since their country is so large. You can live a lifetime in the US without feeling any of the things being talked about in media.
I used to think of America as a silly place that, from my end, didn't really exist. All the news and media coverage felt similar to a reality TV show. It was striking for me to learn that most Americans feel the same way and that their own reality, like mine, is far away from 'America'.
In that respect the US is much worse than Canada. Most Americans have no idea what their country even is. How could they?
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
You're not resisting the government with handguns.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
Right back at you.
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
You paint a picture of my coworker in your head based on two lines of text. It holds no value to reality beyond whatever delusions you need it to hold in your own mind so that you can express yourself.
To make a long story short: you don't need a marriage to find genuine love and affection. To insinuate the alternative to marriage is prostitutes is inane at best. And if someone has had more than 6 marriages then I'm not sure what the institution of marriage even means in relation to this argument, beyond being some hold over that men gravitate to because they tend to feel affection for inanimate objects and ideas.
On the flipside, there are a lot of losers getting married every day. And they outnumber the winners. Not that this is a terribly relevant thing, as I don't see the relevance in your argument towards anything I've said.
Beyond that, people having issues with marriages is not a thing that exists within the confines of my workplace. There are examples of this all around us. If you want to ignore that fact and pretend my workplace experience is unique or unrepresentative go ahead. But I think most people can understand the utility of having billions of dollars to employ people who can solve most of the problems in your personal life so that you can spend your free time doing something with your loved one that you both like doing, rather than saddling them with household chores or whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
I wrote in reply to a comment. The intentionality of my reply exists within the scope of the comment being replied to. But I'll try to broach the topic you bring up to demonstrate what I'm talking about.
Here is something which was alleged in the comment I replied to:
Bezos got married young and doesn't want to learn how to do things like plan dinner parties with his friends while in his 50s.
As I tried to imply in my first comment, you obviously don't need a wife to plan dinner parties for you when you are a billionaire. You can just have a 'life assistant' or whatever.
But the big difference in views I think I see is that the “wife guys” are arguing for marriage through the concept of companionate love: “she’s the best part of my day, she makes my life meaningful,” etc. You’re talking about it in terms of economic and sexual utility: “I could have sex with any woman, and get assistants to do things around the house I don’t want to do.”
This is not what I'm talking about. You don't need marriage for companionate love. You don't need marriage for pair bonding. I would however argue that you need marriage as proof of commitment for some long term goal, like children. Marriage, I'd argue, is a 'utilitarian' or 'materialist' contract.
To that end, marriage is not of any utility for a billionaire. Bezos doesn't need the utility of marriage to experience any of the love a woman could give him. And I'm not saying that in some 'penis into hole' utilitarian sexual gratification kind of way. Bezos can get the purest love of any man and would never need marriage to deal with any of life's problems because the material problems marriage can help ameliorate will never exist for a billionaire to begin with.
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
It's right next to Iran's political platform of 'death to America'.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Prison rape does happen. However, for most people it doesn't exist as anything other than an argumentative 'distraction' that gets in the way of their inconsistent worldview. That has up till this point mostly, if not totally, ignored it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Like I said, the worry in mens prisons is not pregnancy but a high number of extreme cases of rape. Until you articulate a justification for the breakdown of biological boundaries that induce a massive increase in such cases in the name of civil rights, you have no leg to stand on when complaining about trans women.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Why would men and women sharing a cell blow up definitions any more than black and white men sharing a cell? To that end, if we care about biological realities, aren't we way past that threshold?
I don't see the logic follow for any of your statements. The very argument for 'put this person in the white ward of the jail' is 'this is a white man not a black man'.
On top of that, why should one elevate pregnancy over the gravity of post-rape suicides in mens prisons?
You're being antagonistic and argumentative to the point that you don't even understand what is being written. My guess is you saw the word 'transphobia' and your head went spinning.
What is "my way"? I don't particularly like the changes to western society, but I can observe that they have been and are happening. I can therefor also recognize that pretending that some 'sacred' bubble called 'the Olympics' can exist unaffected is dumb. Especially when most of the people who want the bubble to remain also cheer for the change in society.
The people who cooked shit in a pot and now don't want to eat it.
More options
Context Copy link