trannies
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
1yr ago
but modern western trannies are just ugly fatties claiming unverifiable special privilege
Something they have in common with their enablers.
its trans preferences and bigots should be ashamed of questioning the intention of trannies
In the same way, it's female preferences and bigots should be ashamed of questioning the intention of women (room temperature for the last 40 years).
They're the same picture, it's just a lot more in your face because that's what it looks like when that privilege is extended to cover specific types of biological men. They're fargroup to straight women because they've torn their manhood off (literally or symbolically), so they don't have to worry about them trying anything (which is occasionally, per your examples, not entirely how it works in practice) and doing things like destroying women's sports and introducing men into women's prisons is not an issue to them because the consequences of doing so will only be borne by "lesser" women.
If they actually looked like submissive and breedable femboys they'd get more acceptance
Which is why the femboys that actually do this (and pass as a consequence) tend to be inherently opposed to the womanly way of asserting transgender status (i.e. by claiming it and doing nothing else).
2D3D
1yr ago
I am actually thinking of Jessica Yaniv and all the other pedophiles that claimed to be trans all while trying to gain access or actually perving on little girls. Its not straight male sexuality, its trans preferences and bigots should be ashamed of questioning the intention of trannies.
For me the fairly obvious point is that most modern trannies don't fucking bother to pass. They shotgun some clown makeup on and wear a dress, but put zero effort into waxing, dieting or otherwise trying to be women. If they actually looked like submissive and breedable femboys they'd get more acceptance, but modern western trannies are just ugly fatties claiming unverifiable special privilege.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
1yr ago
The lack of internal accountability means sexual abuses in the community that are happening face disincentives to report out of concerns that the community will be discredited means the abused just retreat instead of holding the abusers accountable.
A tactical assessment that is unimpeachably correct. Everyone knows what happened to the Scouts and the Church, and because sexual abuse allegations are a superweapon, it's not going to save the LGBT if the culture shifts.
especially girls
All child gay/trans icons are biologically male, and the "straight male sexuality should be stamped out" is all coming from straight women, not "trannies" (there are so few of them that it wouldn't matter if none of them were sex pests, they're just useful examples). As such, until some internal or external circumstance forces moderation of that tendency, the entire circus will continue growing.
2D3D
1yr ago
Don't forget questioning and queer as allowing weirdos with innocent fetishes to be considered members instead of allies.
Sapiosexuals and demisexuals and aromantics all consider themselves within the LGBT+ umbrella, so they get easy entry.
The lack of internal accountability means sexual abuses in the community that are happening face disincentives to report out of concerns that the community will be discredited means the abused just retreat instead of holding the abusers accountable.
The most obvious are trannies preying on children, especially girls. Most of the community is pretty ugly so perverts focus their attention on young girls seeking an identity, and since these girls don't speak up, the ++ continue unrestricted. I have unfortunately observed a steady supply of young boys eager to pimp themselves out for rich sugar daddies flush with money and drugs, and none of my male friends who were active on grindr as teens show any regrets in their adult life.
With the lack of whistleblowers and a nebulous definition of the community, the entire circus is likely to continue growing, even if public disapproval from rebellious teens grows.
The red tribe has significantly more regional and religious- and sometimes ethnic- variation amongst itself than the blue tribe, although it partially makes up for it by having a bit less generational variation. For a young-ish male red tribe normie of nonspecific ethnic background and lackluster religiosity in Texas-
-
Listens to mostly music that plays on country radio, possibly including Taylor Swift if no one is around(I've seen coworkers hurriedly skip songs in their playlists to hide this). Probably has classic songs on his personal playlist- definitely some older country(think Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, etc) and probably some classic rock or maybe hip hop(think eminem, not gangster rap). Agrees with his elders that modern pop culture and media mostly pushes bad messages and that's deplorable, but probably thinks country music and maybe some science fiction is a partial exception. Probably doesn't read too many books, or catch the latest movie releases, but almost certainly plays video games at least casually.
-
Very proud that his job is useful and productive, and willing to explain exactly how. Is upset at people who do nothing useful yet command high salaries, like HR ladies. Probably thinks his boss is useful, earned his position, and deserves his salary, but thinks his boss's boss is an overpaid jackass who needs to get his nose out of a spreadsheet and deal with the real world. Biggest complaint about work is likely not getting paid enough.
-
Sharply negative opinion of 'wokeness'. Thinks it's utterly retarded at best and more likely to be evil. Thinks anti-white hatred is a threat and may or may not connect wokeness with communism. Definitely doesn't believe in straight or male privilege and possibly a little bit uncomfortable with homosexuality, definitely thinks trannies(and he calls them that) are mentally ill. Still, unless he's particularly religious, he probably isn't socially conservative enough for the religious right. He likely thinks both parties are extreme on abortion, that casual sex is morally wrong but that waiting for marriage is ridiculous, and the death penalty is an obvious right. Very pro gun rights.
-
Is a Christian- in decreasing order of likelihood, an Evangelical, a Catholic, "other Christian", Mormon, and mainline. Believes the bible is the truest thing ever written, and knows he should pay more attention to it, and probably feels guilty for not going to church every Sunday. But God is forgiving, he's pretty sure that's written in the bible somewhere.
-
Really likes it when he gets to interact with or supervise elementary school-age boys(about 6 to 11, for non-Americans), but might be a bit less sold on other kids. Being a volunteer coach, scoutmaster, etc, is something he'd happily do. Wants kids and expects to eventually make financial sacrifices for the possibility, is possibly frustrated by the modern dating market and probably a bit scared by today's divorce laws. Still, if he's got a good woman and he's in the situation to get married, you can't be scared of everything.
-
Expects his girlfriend's father to care a great deal about how much money he makes and not much about how reputable his job is, barring outliers like strip club manager or NFL quarterback. Is aware that buying that ring without her father's blessing is a serious faux pas. Expects to carry on a much more socially conservative lifestyle in practice after he gets married, and finds it suspect to seriously date a woman you're unwilling to marry if she gets pregnant.
-
Believes sports are important, even if he doesn't participate in any(and that might be obvious from his physique). Follows football but probably is only peripherally aware of basketball and says baseball has 'too many games'. Definitely fishes, might go golfing, possibly thinks he should get into soccer but he doesn't. He thinks hunting is cool but doesn't go unless someone invites him. Owns a gun either way, and thinks responsible citizens(like himself) should have wide latitude to carry concealed and use guns in self defense.
-
Strongly supports the police and military even if he hasn't personally served. Won't hesitate to recommend enlistment to a young man who seems a bit lost in life.
-
Is very upset about inflation and the cost of housing, for which he mostly blames democrats. Is not vaccinated and opinions of the covid response run along the spectrum from 'hysterical, neurotic, and possibly psychotic in the clinical sense' to 'actually evil'. Strong supporter of Gov. Abbott's border behavior and wishes he'd confront the federal government like that to build nuclear power plants. Might question universal suffrage after a drink or two, but isn't quite sure how the franchise should be restricted. Supports a retirement age for politicians.
-
Doesn't approve of Trump's personal behavior, but doesn't think he's done anything that would be illegal if normal people did it. Might think some of the January 6 prisoners are being prosecuted unfairly, but probably not all of them. Is aware that democracy is decaying and firmly blames democrats and particularly Trump derangement syndrome; his elders talk about communism and socialism, and he's aware those are bad things, but it looks more like social and environmental than economic lunacy that's an actual threat to him. Thinks immigration is excessive but that deporting millions of people is a pie-in-the-sky exercise; admires the first gen illegals for their work ethic but thinks their children are great arguments against birthright citizenship. Is not a race realist or a white nationalist, but probably thinks it's better to be white than anything else, and doesn't even try to reconcile the two beliefs.
-
Knows there's just no fixing some people, but doesn't like tying it to a specific quality like intelligence or conscientiousness. Knows those people are disproportionately likely to be black, but thinks everyone should have the chance to be judged individually, on their merits. Has a very low opinion of black culture. Tells jokes about all the different kinds of people, but only to those he knows well. Might still be prejudiced against new englanders. If he doesn't agree with you he'll tell you to your face, and expects people to get to the point if they have something to say.
-
Talks to his dad regularly and consults with him for advice. Might travel or do activities with his dad and wouldn't find it an insult to be compared to him. The same might go for grandpa. Definitely does not think using parental resources is wrong, as long as he's not a burden, but he'd think there's something wrong with a man who lives with his parents well into adulthood(a woman, probably not).
-
Looks down his nose at 'woo-woo crap', but himself willing to listen to alternate medicine and a wide variety of conspiracy theories. Might go on oddball diets, but cheats on them. Expects women to be doing this perpetually.
The Overton window shifted.
Boys use to be allowed to be boys but you did it respectfully.
We live in the social media age. Only fans exists. Sleeping with a porn star isn’t that big of thing (I’ve done it). But besides that grabby them by the pussy and screwing porn stars is normie compared to trannies on the White House lawn and gays banging in bondage in the Senate.
To say the obvious atleast Trump likes girls.
2D3D
1yr ago
Eh, fair. Progs tend to hate Russia rightly for it being a socially regressive dictatorship, but tankies love Russia because it still opposes the evil west. I till now cannot understand the intersection of tankies, trannies and racial inferiorization (this is specific to whites who are the only group were a subset - white liberals- display out-group preference), and I honestly find tankie and tranny discords more baffling than nazi ones... which is quite the achievement.
(sidenote: why are there so many femboys and furries, non overlapping, on right wing spheres? its nuts)
2D3D
1yr ago
I mean, if Trump was going to be the harbinger of death, he's been the shittiest one possible. He just whines about being disrespected, blusters about how he totally is on top of things, and acts as a bugzapper for progs to sperg out and suicide straight into with increasingly unhinged takes. Trump cant even get a proper militia running to shake down a library of degenerate trannies, much less round up every BLM activist and lynch them like they've been screaming about. The only faction in the last thirty that walked the talk of being a bunch of brutal bastards who wrecked shit has been ISIS and the Cartels. Putin hasn't nuked London, Kim hasn't invaded Seoul, Meloni hasn't sunk the migrant boats, Bibi hasn't initiated Nakba 2 and Trump hasn't killed a single fucking prog.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1yr ago
Use-mention distinction.
If you are referring to other people as faggots or trannies or niggers or whatever, it would be hard to convince me that your intent was anything other than to be insulting and inflammatory.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
1yr ago
Hmm, if memory serves, I don't think raggedy was one of the mods awake when I was discussing my warning to Astragant with the older mods, so it may well be that she might have have disagreed at the time but just didn't happen to speak up or notice.
The influx of new mods will inevitably lead to drift in moderation decisions, though I do sincerely believe that after the degree of vetting we've been through, none of us are going to make particularly divergent decisions from the expectations of the regular users/previous mod consensus.
I strongly value free speech, and have more tolerance for pejoratives/uncharitable terms for people, including my ingroup, but of course, that's not infinitely so, especially if my personal preferences would lead to a general degradation of civility on The Motte. Hence why I warned Astragant in the first place, whereas if I was still a normal user, I'd just upvote and move on.
While the mods try, quite hard I might add, to show a united front, differences in opinion are to be expected. All I'm saying is that these are bounded.
In particular, I took great pains to show why I modded Astragant, with caveats aplenty. I don't recall seeing Skulldrinker's comment before she got to it, but in all likelihood it would have tripped my moderation threshold, even if not for quite the same reasons. I am aware that putting my mod hat on means that my opinions carry some degree of official weight, including speaking for the other mods.
I expect if a post that calls people trannies and also makes the 10,000th run-of-the-mill advocacy for conservative values, @raggedy_anthem will mod it and you will not.
It depends. Unsatisfactory answer, maybe, but it's still true. I consider just the use of "tranny" not worth a rebuke, but further action depends on precisely how they went about their "conservative advocacy". I think this particular comment was inflammatory (even if I personally agree with it), and thus I support her decision. Further relevant factors include the user's standing, and how severe the punishment given is.
A warning? That's fine by me. If she had gone for a ban, I would first check if Skull had a pattern of being obnoxious (especially after being officially warned), and likely discuss the matter internally, and if the two of us still couldn't see eye to eye, I'd go with overall mod consensus instead of unilaterally reversing the decision or disputing it in public. But in the end, we have some degree of independent initiative, and we all answer to Zorba in the end.
I hope that clarifies things, and I can understand that you might put more of a premium on politeness than I do, which is fine, I certainly value it too, if not quite as much.
I don’t think your explanations contradict the mod-hating of your irrespective (?) comments.
I do think your explanations contradict each other’s explanations. I expect if a post that calls people trannies and also makes the 10,000th run-of-the-mill advocacy for conservative values, @raggedy_anthem will mod it and you will not.
That’s fine, I’m not looking for perfect consistency between mods, I was just remarking that this seems like a change in direction to our moderation.
As somebody who thinks it’s mind numbingly obvious “the foundation” has only eroded since we were founded, I’m just happy there’s a mod willing to up civility standards, since I’ve long been clear that I think that’s a requirement for the foundation, since shit-flinging is detrimental to minority views.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
1yr ago
You may, assuming the rest of your comment doesn't continue to not contribute to the atmosphere/culture we seek to cultivate here, also call people trannies (or at least I won't mod you for that reason alone).
Emphasis added.
Moderators aren't perfectly consistent, we're human too. While we attempt to build internal consensus for any major decisions, especially bans, something as minor as a warning doesn't usually warrant further discussion.
Calling people trannies is hardly the only inflammatory wording Skulldrinker made, I think "tranny-hags" is probably even worse.
In this case, I think what @raggedy_anthem said is perfectly consistent with what I did, and even if it wasn't, minor variation in what each mod considers unacceptable are to be expected. If it was a ban, especially a lengthy one, I would personally say it wasn't warranted, at least in internal discussion, but here I stand with her.
This was very unexpected to me. The last time somebody was modded for saying "trannies" was more than a year ago, despite many people having used the word.
Moreover just 7 days ago the @self_made_human said (while mod-hatted)
I don't even particularly care that you call them trannies, I'm not one to police vocabulary where the word is entirely synonymous with more polite equivalents, even if it's pejorative.
(To be clear, I like the "write like everyone is reading" rule and wish it were actually enforced, and do think using pejorative is just needless heat. I'm just surprised there's a mod who actually seems to agree)
Skulldrinker
1yr ago
I've listened in IRL on the clique of trannies, non-binaries, and tranny-hags that infested a local bar's drop-in RPG night. A 3-minute sample got them calling some neighbor of theirs a disgusting bigot, and something to do with freeing palestine. Their games are also fuckawful. It drove all the non-terrible players to come on a different night.
Not exactly damning airtight evidence, just funny that I walk in on them right at that point. They...failed to win me over.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
1yr ago
Sigh. It seems it was inevitable that I'd have to get around to doing the unpleasant part of being a mod at some point, namely enforcing the rules and using my discretion in ambiguous situations. But I did sign up for it.
Please consider this a request, and a mild warning, not to speak this way.
So far, your comment has received 3 reports for being antagonistic, which it clearly seems to be to me. To an extent, antagonism is a forgivable sin, and I certainly plead guilty to being less than maximally polite on occasion.
However, what does draw my attention is that this, to me, represents an example of "waging the Culture War". There's no strict line in the sand here, the people discussing CW in the CW thread are almost always at least modest opinionated on the matter, and advocacy for one's beliefs is in no way disbarred.
I don't even particularly care that you call them trannies, I'm not one to police vocabulary where the word is entirely synonymous with more polite equivalents, even if it's pejorative. If someone insisted on calling Jews "Blood-drinking vampires", then I'd consider that to be an obvious infraction. Some of the other mods may well disagree, but I'm only me, and I have a degree of leeway here.
It might surprise you to learn that I happen to largely agree with you. I consider transgenderism, if not an outright mental illness in the strictest sense, to be highly comorbid with it. I wouldn't balk at calling many of them insane like you did. I have a soft spot for Kiwi Farms, Rdrama and the other untamed corners of the internet, and I'm glad they live to fight another day in an increasingly homogenous internet where the edges are sanded down and a relatively small but vocal minority tyrannizes the rest of us and slides the French Overton Window as fast as the rails allow.
That being said, I would prefer you be less antagonistic. You are allowed to be happy that attempts to deplatform a site that makes fun of transgender people backfire. You may enjoy schadenfreude. You may, assuming the rest of your comment doesn't continue to not contribute to the atmosphere/culture we seek to cultivate here, also call people trannies (or at least I won't mod you for that reason alone).
But the gestalt impression conveyed by your comment? Bad. Not conducive to the (ideal) spirit of even-tempered discussion of contentious topics. The problem with culture war fervor, schadenfreude, and pithy pejorative labels for the outgroup is that they tend to crowd out everything else, or at least foster a negative spiral if left unaddressed that leads to everyone else doing the same, and those looking for more polite and high quality debate crinkling their nose and leaving. We aren't rdrama, this is what we are trying to avoid here, and by including all three and not much else, this comment is not helping.
I'll leave it at that, it would take a trivial restatement of your comment to make it slip under the high threshold I hold for formal mod action, if not a reprimand. If you wish to consider this an attempt at censorship (and how can mod action not be?), then it's of tone and not content.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
1yr ago
That was their screwup.
If the foundation of your worldview is that liberal Jewish elites run the show/elections are just Kayfabe (insert your favorite variant here so we don't end up quibbling over your beliefs) and you work your way out from there, interpreting data as you go, I can guarantee that you'll find a lot of data that supports your worldview. Flat Earthers have long chains of logic where no individual link is completely bonkers, but it's built on a rotten foundation.
From my perspective, Hillary Clinton was a fairly strong candidate who was done dirty by a combination of conservative media (proto-Qanon cheese pizza/adrenochrome/comet ping pong beliefs? Collapsing like a sack of meat showing that she was on death's door?), email server bullshit, bad feelings around the Bernie Sanders saga (were the Kochs involved???) and genuine dissatisfaction amongst working class whites towards the system and elites. With this framing, conservative media isn't so worthless after all.
There's this odd dichotomy in Conservative circles; Trump will rant about how the media hates him and he's the underdog, then turn around and brag about how Fox News is the most watched channel while CNN and the failing New York Times are hemorrhaging viewers because the General Public is on our side and hate being lectured about trannies. Dan Crenshaw is some Alpha Male soldier bro who releases ads of him obliterating the libs, but everyone in DC is a feckless RINO who drops their trousers and bends over anytime the White House comes knocking for more funding. The libs are a bunch of soyboy faggot snowflakes who REEEEEE at our dank memes, but they're also shadowy elites pulling the strings in Davos that we're on a righteous crusade against.
Just because they screwed up doesn't mean they don't have power. (And of course the Supreme Court and abortion are downstream of that mistake.)
Just because they have power, doesn't mean they're omnipotent or even (apparently) that they get what they want most of the time. Furthermore, blaming shadowy elites for all your problems is usually (1) cope and (2) easier to confront than the fact that tens of millions of your countrypeople genuinely believe what they say they believe and they aren't just being manipulated by the media or George Soros or whatever else you want.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
It can be malicious if I think to myself "haha, using 'he' will trigger the trannies, so I will slip in a historical sentences to have an excuse to use 'he', and use 'they' otherwise to stay one the good side of the rules".
The rule also hits legitimate uses, but it's a compromise, that's inevitable.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1yr ago
Far more so now than ever before as the 'respectable' and 'sensible' or 'adult' Libertarians walk back on their oath to liberty above all to protest trannies and drag queens.
You can go quite a long way (indeed, in some cases further than I'd like to go) into attempting to disassemble LGBTQI without doing anything that technically breaks libertine principles.
-
banning LGBTQI rhetoric from being taught in public schools: this doesn't technically infringe anyone's freedom of speech in the usual libertine construction. The teachers can still say it, they just can't say it on the clock and still get paid (free contract - they're employed by the State, and the State can set conditions of what is and is not their job), and they are entirely free to pick another career or find another - private - employer who will pay them to teach kids LGBTQI. (If you want to go the galaxy-brain libertine position on this, you could also just disestablish schools.)
-
removing gay marriage: marriage is a social construct, not a physical action; you have no liberty right to society agreeing with your idea. Fucking is a physical action, and it's against liberty to ban that, but since unmarried sex is legal that's not relevant. Similar reasoning applies to legal transition.
-
defunding transition therapy: it's against liberty to ban cosmetic surgery, but it's up to society what society pays for.
-
removing pronoun policies: these are anti-libertine in the first place; you can call yourself what you like, but whether other people go along with it is, in a place with free speech, their decision (free contract prevents you from stamping these out when it's a private actor with no public funding imposing it, though; see above).
This would be an extremely salient critique if I wasn't in a thread with Libertarian minded people talking about limiting the liberty of others because they happen to not like and not believe in the thing others are doing with their own liberty.
The LP is not a stick I am hitting Libertarians with because it's a silly group filled with people on the spectrum. I mentioned it precisely because those people, the most looney left-Libertarians, are the only ones standing by the principles. The King of Gondor is dancing naked on stage to protest government corruption, foaming at the mouth at the mere insinuation that people need take a test to drive a car. And he is a legitimate noble king. Far more so now than ever before as the 'respectable' and 'sensible' or 'adult' Libertarians walk back on their oath to liberty above all to protest trannies and drag queens.
I would say Libertarianism is futile because eventually Libertarians realize they don't want to live in a society filled with things they don't like. They actually want nice things. A nice society, like described by Hoppe. Some might even recognize, on some level, though it is a stretch, that just because they like smoking weed doesn't mean it's good for a free market economy to actively promote it to children like it's soda. In fact soda might be just as bad or even worse, I mean, look at the obesity rates...
Libertarians, like others, see expressions and assertions of morals that are too alien to them as inherently hostile. And as they grow in a world where the consequences of freedom start encroaching on other sensibilities they hold alongside liberty, they start moving away from liberty towards something else. Sure, it takes them more time than others, as they value liberty more than others. But it's just a matter of degree. And when the existence and free expression of moral aliens manages to sufficiently push society to a place so foreign and abnormal to Libertarian sensibilities that they balk at the notion that these people be free then there is no difference between a Libertarian and a person who wanted to nip this in the bud long before it got this out of hand.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You're right.
My usual spiel relates to rapes, violent assault and murder, all of which are dramatically exasperated by race tensions and desegregation. But I forgot to mention the two latter ones.
On that front the issue of violence in prisons in general is separate to the additional violence added on top of that due to nothing other than desegregation. The amount of violence added due to that policy dwarfs anything trannies could do in a womens prison. So the meat of the argument is the comparison between those two policies.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I agree it's a good test, but if we are not extrapolating our thinking to the relevant larger things in this context, then what we can discuss becomes limited. I like the people I like and I dislike the people I dislike. There's not much there.
If someone I like has an identity, 'fake' or 'real', in whatever sense, I'm not all that fussed about it. If I like them and it's real to them then it's real to me no problem. Because I like them. If it's fake to the outgroup I don't care. So long as they are not harming the ingroup I'd want anyone I like to have everything they need. Especially if the perception is that what they need is coming from the outgroup in some way. (I mean, tl;dr: I tolerate my ingroup, not the outgroup.)
You made Madden an example because they are so very easily outgroupable. No one wants to own the criminally insane outside of extreme circumstance. But if Madden can be used to harm the prospects of the ingroup in some way then that will get called out. Which is the immediate perceptions trannies have whenever this kind of thing gets brought up. And I'd argue their perceptions are entirely correct.
If this topic is only about our personal likes, then we all dislike Madden and there is nothing more to be said. If this is not about our personal taste then it's about respecting people and their identities and how far one could or should go. The only reason this is a topic in modern discourse is because of trannies. This subject, if anything is to be discussed, can only be understood through the lens of trans-rights. And to that end the matter has already been settled.
Trannies will get ingrouped, they will be placed in womens prisons or an extremely expensive alternative. Some women will be raped as a consequence and that's fine. We already accept mass rape as an acceptable price for others to pay for our modern moral sensibilities. The potential fallout and harm that might be caused by a few women being raped in jail is chicken shit compared to what's already been done and celebrated in the name of ending segregation.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2yr ago
Edge cases don't need to be the basis for how we construct our society.
They are, on the other hand, excellent tests for how we think about things.
What's the argument?
The most plainly I can state my position on the matter is that I don't think I should feel morally obligated (less still, be legally obligated) to respect people's stated identities. Instead, I think my obligation to respect someone's identity extends as far as that identity is reflected in the actual reality of the individual and what they seem to wish to gain from using that identity.
If you don't like trannies just say that.
I don't have a generalizable problem with trans-identified individuals. I know trans-identified individuals that are personally pleasant, have made an honest attempt to appear to be their chosen gender, and that require nothing onerous from anyone. As the saying goes, they just want to be left alone. I'm more than happy to provide them with the respect and decency that they want (and in my opinion) deserve.
My point is not that no one should have their stated identity respected, it's that there are examples of people who clearly have fake, illegitimate identification, and that this demonstrates that not all stated identities need to be respected by either individuals or the state. Where that line is will be a matter of legal wrangling and personal inclinations, but I reject the frame that allows a literal Nazi human-butcherer to convert to a Jewish woman when convenient.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The counter argument here is rather simple. Edge cases don't need to be the basis for how we construct our society.
Yeah, it's hard to even imagine a more fitting example for the case against 'respecting someones identity' than what you just gave. But if we contrast that with the case of a harmless shut in depressed teenager who has tied their ego to their identity... What's the argument? Are walking contradictions like Madden's more or less common than the teenager? Obviously the teenager is more common and drastically so.
It's not a bridge too far to say that we can respect people on the basis they wish to be respected. We do that all the time. Baked into your example is a whole bunch of protected identities. Jew. Woman. Gay. How far should we go to respect those? And what is the view people generally have towards those identities, and why? Well, the punishment for not respecting these identities is jail time. On the flipside there are special events to celebrate them and belonging to them can offer a variety of special privileges. I mean, women who torture and kill children get a comfy womens prison to go to. Men who can't pay child support get locked in a cell with an AIDS riddled rapist.
If you don't like trannies just say that. Because respecting someones identity goes all the way and no one disagrees with the notion that their ingroup should be respected and protected. If you want to engineer a social norm that says trannies are not kosher, then talk about that. But currently the powers that be are working overtime making trannies into a protected identity just like jews, women and gays are. One schizophrenic jew is not going to stop them. We've paved over far worse to get to where we are today.
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
2yr ago
Trump doesn't need to offer red meat to his base. His base already love him so much that they are still supporting him even after he has been indicted twice for serious crimes of which he is obviously guilty (and once for some bullshit process crime in NY). His problem is that his base are not close to a majority of the electorate - they are barely a majority in a Republican primary.
Trump either needs to convince more NeverTrump Republicans to hold their noses and vote for the crook, not the Democrat, or to convince more Reagan Democrat types that trannies are more of a threat to their kids than Russians.
Last I checked these things counted as killing trans, kids or otherwise:
I am 100% sure I missed more examples of this absurdity, but there is no need to belabor the point.
Honestly after a certain point I get the sense that the trannies just want to turn the screws on the cis to put cis in their place. Trannies don't actually want to be weightlifters or cyclists save for the ego stokers, trannies just want to fuck women who can't say no. The visible threat is obviously AGP transwomen acting disingenuously, but the expansive language has captured a shitload of confused angry teen girls convinced their lives would be better if they were boys. Normie PMC bullied into supporting an extensive definition of trans mental health causes for the benefit of degenerate transwomen end up generating a corpus of stupid teenagers getting permanent damage to their bodies and psyches. More and more kids seem to be aware of this discrepancy and revealed preferences point to where the kids really are going - everyone is fucking instathots or smoothskinned gymchads, and no amount of stunning and brave laudatory praise on ugly fatties or short butches is actually giving egotistical fetishists the validation they demand.
More options
Context Copy link