kek
If you are trying to get a rise out of /lgbt/ you are barking up the wrong tree. Only lesbians support feminism and gays and trans people are tired of feminism's hatred of men and transfolk
>>5422444
This. Feminism and SJWs get shit on here just as much as everywhere else (though they can still be damnably persistent.
>caring this much about anything
Sometimes I wish people would just shut the fuck up about everything.
>>5422444
I just want a normal girlfriend who isn't some extremist (this goes for any cause) and can hold a normal conversation.
Tragically, I like older women and most of them are extremely political/vegan/super radfem.
>>5422472
That is because the majority of lesbians are angry hateful women. Women are the most privileged people in the world but they constantly come up short to men so the grow resentful and filled with hate for men.
>>5422467
That pic, holy shit. Thanks for the keks.
>muh coordinated cyber terrorist attack against womyns who dindu nuffin
>>5422467
The last post really hurts.
(As someone supporting feminism on 4chan, that is. Every now and then I have to remember I'm in the Anti-Feminist Central of the Internet.)
>>5428628
But anon, this is 4chan. We're the enemy.
>>5428709
Gotta infiltrate your enemy from within you know.
(Actually, some boards aren't that bad.)
>>5428710
Most arent, really.
I mean fuck, most of 4chan is actually feminist if you go by the definition of 'want men and women to be equal'. There's obvious exceptions ofc.
It's just that there's argument on what counts as 'equal'. Equal opportunity / equal result / etc.
>>5428728
Most people think they want equality but are so misinformed that they think feminism is against equality, so all in all they end up being against equality.
As a transbian I find this offensive. I am mentioning this to my blog community.
>>5428734
Thats just because of the tumblr crowd and the more radical feminists who dont want equality, they want power.
I mean, it's all very well for us to say "They're just a vocal minority", and they ARE just a vocal minority, but they are incredibly fucking vocal. Single handedly ruining any kind of 'popular appeal' the feminist movement might have, and that it certainly needs.
Shit's annoying.
>>5428764
Go read Pornography and Civil Rights.
http://radfem.org/dworkin
>>5428770
>>5428770
Porn has nothing to do with this. Sex work in general has nothing to do with this.
Also for reference, Dworkin is one of the exact people I was talking about.
Turns out we're on opposite sides of this I guess.
>>5428777
The book is just generally very good about equality. The first parts aren't concerned with porn specifically, so go read them.
And I'm certain that you haven't read a single book by Dworkin, given that you're opposed to her.
>>5428770
>They just want power
>Aha! That's exactly what you would say if we actually didn't just want power!
That's not an argument, that's just retarded. Look at what happened with James Deen, or what Clementine Ford did to that hotel employee. Women now have the power to ruin men's careers with just a tweet or an email. I'm pretty confident that men don't have that power over women; I'm even more confident that no one should have that power.
>>5428781
I havent read much of Germaine Greer either but that doesnt stop me from thinking she's hateful.
As for Dworkin, no, I've not read her stuff in detail because I have no particular desire to, and because I dont NEED to to know that I disagree wholeheartedly.
I'm a sex positive feminist, so we innately disagree.
Also, your wording is unclear.
If you meant "I can tell you havent read her books because if you had, you'd agree with her" then you'd be quite quite wrong.
>>5428781
>If you read her, then you'll definitely support her
I don't need to know a single thing about Dworkin to know that this is a very dangerous line of thinking.
>>5428764
>I mean, it's all very well for us to say "They're just a vocal minority", and they ARE just a vocal minority, but they are incredibly fucking vocal.
The subversive thing is that you can only be a vocal minority for so long until impressionable young people grow up surrounded by radicalism and eventually become, if not the majority, then at least a major party in their field.
I think feminism is currently making that transition. Feminists saw all of this rising to the surface a long time ago, but were silent either out of a sense of solidarity, or simply a feminist respect for a woman's right to express her own opinion, and radfems took full advantage of that.
>>5428734
I can sort of understand the argument being made here, but nothing to convince me it's actually right.
I kind of hope things go this way though, just because those would be an entertaining couple of years. Men are already a minority on most college campuses, with their performance plummeting thanks to faculty favoring female students under this warped model of "equality". How far does it have to go until it's made "fair"? Can't wait until universities are 70% upper class girls with communications degress, still asserting there's some sort of horrific male dominance looming over them.
>>5428783
>Women now have the power to ruin men's careers with just a tweet or an email.
Correction: some women now have the power to have some rapists face repercussions after months/years of being celebrated by the public, by using the media's superficial commitment to justice.
The situation is this fucked up, and you use it as an example of "women having power"? You're so deeply biased towards male hegemony it's absurd.
>>5428784
You can start with Woman Hating if you want to read Dworkin. It's just 200 pages and can serve as a manifesto of radical feminism, I think.
>If you meant "I can tell you havent read her books because if you had, you'd agree with her"
There's always the chance that one is full-out no-holds-barrel /pol/, but most often if someone halfway intelligent has read Dworkin they will most likely feel some sympathy for her movement and at the least have a more nuanced view on her and not see her as an evil witch.
>>5428787
Stay in ignorance then.
>>5428808
>Men are already a minority on most college campuses, with their performance plummeting thanks to faculty favoring female students under this warped model of "equality".
Sounds like bullshit. Any sources?
>>5428836
>some racists face repercussions
Alleged rapist.
Look, I'm sympathetic to the fact that rapes are really hard to prove, and thus a lot of rapists get away with it. That sucks and it makes this a really hard problem. But I'm not comfortable with crucifying people in the court of public opinion on no more evidence than tweets, and I'm really not comfortable with the absolute reckless abandon and glee with which people perform that crucifixion. They don't even recognize that there's any ambiguity in the situation, that this could set a dangerous precedent. There's no "yeah, there's a chance he didn't do it and that's unfortunate, but I want to give the benefit of the doubt to the accusers," there's just, "I want this motherfucker to burn." Tone matters.
And I notice you didn't address my Clementine Ford example. She got a guy fired for a mean comment he left on the Internet. I don't think she should have been able to do that. And I don't think a man could do that to a woman, but I could be wrong.
>stay in ignorance then
My knowledge of Andrea Dworkin isn't the issue here. The issue is that you seem to think that anyone who reads her will agree with her, under threat of irrationality or moral decadence. Do you really think anyone is that infallible?
>>5428836
I am 100% not pot.
I'm a lesbian, I'd have tobe retarded to go full /pol/
I just disagree whole-heartedly with sex-negative feminism.
>>5428808
Yeah very true. That's my biggest issue, honestly. There used to be this sort of tacit not-quite-approval that came from the silence people kept about the more retarded ends of the spectrum. I think possibly it was "ignore them, dont encourage them" but also, yeah, misplaced solidarity and that.
Problem is that now, we've got more and more radfems laying down their poison roots and spreading their bullshit.
>>5428836
Anon's right, numbers of men in university are shrinking, and male perfomance at all levels of school is falling too. At least, that's how it is in the UK.
It's not to the point that men are an outright minority, but they're the smaller count, certainly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11773729/Why-are-fewer-boys-going-to-university.html
Here's a quick google'd source for the UK at least.
>>5428868
>not pot
top kek I can type I swear.
I obviously meant 'not pol'
>>5428836
Just going to pull out some quick google searches
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,90446,00.html
http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/
desu I can't help but feel that schools might benefit from being gender segregated. I've never met a female teacher who knew how to properly handle a rambunctious young male student, which leads to her penalizing him for the teacher's own inability to engage him. If this happens during his formative years it can have some really damaging lifelong effects.
The reverse is also true, of course. Male teachers are generally harsher and more matter-of-fact, and can unwittingly convince young girls that such-and-such subject is boring or useless. But the vast majority of teachers are female, so girls tend to have easy access to support.
>>5428863
>Alleged rapist.
I think you can stop posting now.
>no more evidence than tweets
You mean no more evidence than a woman saying that she has been raped.
>the absolute reckless abandon and glee with which people perform that crucifixion
You can be mad at the pro-porn folks who suddenly go all "omg how could this happen!!" on him, but radical feminists have always been opposed to sick things like rape porn and have been saying for decades now that connecting the glorification of rape in pornography to people condoning rape is not exactly a big leap in logic.
So no hypocrisy on the side of radfems here, only on the side of so-called "sex-positive" folks, who seem mentally incapable of differentiating between healthy sexuality and an obsession over rape.
>Clementine Ford
I don't know who that is and what went down so I can't comment on it, but...
>a mean comment
A sexist comment, I presume?
Do you think workplaces should tolerate openly racist employees?
>>5428868
>sex-negative feminism
Using that term shows how ignorant you are. It's like calling pro-abortion-rights folks anti-life.
Well feminism is more about equity, not equality. They want female dominated fields like housekeeping to be on par with engineering for example.
But they also want stuff like for women to be able to take 1-2 years off work but still make the same wage as men, despite not actually having to work.
Basically it's just an extension of "Gibs me dat" which is why feminists have so much trouble lobbying private corporations but they succeed quite well lobbying universities and government.
>>5428912
Well it's a disagreement with sex-positive feminism.
Supply me with a more accurate title for it and I'll use it. No need to try and be insulting.
>>5428910
>http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,90446,00.html
So, the boys don't want to study a certain material because they find it "girlish" and this is somehow *not* the fault of our patriarchal culture forcing idiotic masculinity on boys?
>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/
Again, teachers are showing bias for students who are more engaged with learning, and boys act more often like asshats and get penalized for that, and this is somehow *not* the fault of our culture encouraging boys to be assholes?
I didn't read the articles in full but it seems like you're just giving me more evidence of cultural issues caused by gender stereotypes which radical feminism is so opposed against.
>>5428920
Anti-porn feminism.
>>5428926
It's not just anti-porn though.
It's also sex work in general.
>>5428912
I'm not that anon, but a woman saying she had been raped is not evidence. You're not separating the accusation from the evidence used to support it. That's why they typed alleged rape. Do you know the difference between alleged and convicted?
>>5428931
Hmm, point. I'm afraid there just isn't a single word for the concept of "the cultural construction of sex as something inherently based in dominance and submission". If there's a word for that, then they're anti-that.
Hell, even that isn't entirely accurate. The opposition to prostitution and pornography seems to simply stem from the observation that they're closely tied with systematic harm to women. The ideology is born out of empirical observation and pragmatic activism.
See, part of the problem is that liberal feminists seem to come from high-and-mighty ideology, whereas radical feminists come from close analysis of the lives of women suffering from patriarchy in the worst possible ways.
>>5428940
I simply see no reason at all to disbelieve her, and don't see why a bunch of women would suddenly pop up and say "well, me too actually."
Unless you already believe in women being manipulative witches, it just doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that the kind of pornography these women work in blurs the line between rape and legitimate sex, so when it happens to them they cannot properly speak out.
>>5428836
>>5428781
>>5428770
>>5428734
Oh hey radical.
Do you want to explain why your campaign flooded Houston's HERO referendum with stuff from? https://archive.loveisover.me/lgbt/thread/5384634/#5385014 and
https://archive.loveisover.me/lgbt/thread/5384634/#5385014
I mean you've graduated to working with the religious right to spam posters and blog content claiming that gay men and trans women are evil rapists out to murder society's women and children. It's full on national socialist propaganda by now.
Your movment will stop at nothing going to try and do everything they can to have lgbt people murdered in pogroms and you still have the gall to put everyone down after what you did in HERO.
>>5428912
>I think you can stop posting now.
Go eat shit. I happen to think innocent until proven guilty is an excellent principle, one that is worthy of upholding.
>no more evidence than a woman saying she was raped
Yes, that's correct.
>sick things like rape porn
Remember when it was the political right that wanted to censor media because it was wrong and evil, and the political left stood up for people's freedom? Yeah, I miss those days.
>A sexist comment, I presume?
He called her a slut.
>Do you think workplaces should tolerate openly racist employees?
I think ever case needs to be analyzed individually. My general heuristic is to lean towards forgiveness, unless it's affecting someone's job performance.
>>5428910
There's been huge criticisms over degree programs in the modern Era though.
I'd see it more as men wisening up to a corrupt system while women lag behind due to excitement over the lack of discrimination. Because quite frankly, the majority of degrees are utterly useless and bring you into huge amounts of debt. Plus a higher female enrollment doesn't correlate to higher female employment.
Working your way up from certificates, diplomas, and tradeschools is currently the best method to avoid unemployment.
>>5428949
>>5428951
Please tell me how blaming everything that's wrong with society on minority groups and demanding we exterminate those groups will do anything to advance equality?
How again does your torpedoing antidisctimination laws by claiming that lgbt is a rape Trojan horse and pushing fliers on a that along with the rest of the religious fundamentalists advance your revolution in any way.
>>5428926
>So, the boys don't want to study a certain material because they find it "girlish" and this is somehow *not* the fault of our patriarchal culture forcing idiotic masculinity on boys?
You can blame everything on your own personal bugbear if you want, the rest of us will be over here trying to understand the nuance of these issues.
>Again, teachers are showing bias for students who are more engaged with learning, and boys act more often like asshats and get penalized for that, and this is somehow *not* the fault of our culture encouraging boys to be assholes?
The problem with this one is that you think the boys are acting poorly, and not just acting like boys. In fact, I bet when I said "acting like boys" your first thought was something along the lines of "so mens natural state is to be abusive rapists?", right? You associate boys behavior with bad behavior, you treat them like defective girls and then wonder why they end up fucked up.
>I simply see no reason at all to disbelieve her
That's fine, but you think belief in the accuser should be enough to punish the accused?
Assuming this is about the Stoya/Dean case though, there's plenty of reason to disbelieve her. It was relatively well known that she was bipolar as fuck, with quite a few horror stories coming out of former co-workers long before the rape scandal that she would routinely abuse other women who worked with Dean, threaten suicide if she didn't get her way, and yes, threaten Dean with rape accusations a few times as well.
And the day she made those tweets, she had just learned that Dean was moving in with his new girlfriend.
Hmm.
>>5428951
>spam posters and blog content claiming that gay men and trans women are evil rapists out to murder society's women and children
>being this brainwashed by /pol/
It hurts.
>>5428959
>until proven guilty
The situation servers as sufficient proof for me.
>no MORE evidence than a woman saying she was raped
Actually, 6 or so (?) women saying they were all raped. But anyway, I understand women's voices don't count for you.
>hurr durr censorship
Yeah, go fuck a cactus, or alterntaively, go read Pornography and Civil Rights, or merely the Wikipedia article on anti-porn feminism. Tip: it's anti-censorship. Ooooh, how surprising, huh?!
>He called her a slut.
So, a sexist slur. Go call someone a nigger and expect not to be fired.
>>5428971
>blaming everything that's wrong with society on minority groups
TIL white cis het middle- and upper-class men are a minority group.
>>5428978
>the rest of us will be over here trying to understand the nuance of these issues
Oh the irony. Have you read a single book on radical feminist analysis of our culture?
>you think the boys are acting poorly, and not just acting like boys
So you believe that males are naturally inclined to act like assholes, and you think radical feminists are the man-haters. Typical.
>but because it's natural, it isn't assholish, it's just how they are!!!
Oh, well, shit, sorry!
>you think belief in the accuser should be enough to punish the accused
Not in general, what would even make you think so.
>the woman is really mentally ill and jealous of the rapist's new girlfriend!
We just went full-round.
By the way it's Deen not Dean.
>>5428912
>Using that term shows how ignorant you are. It's like calling pro-abortion-rights folks anti-life
Your movment is literally claiming that lgbt people are pedophiles who want to kill children and women. You put posters on that in Houston.
Sex negative isn't a proper term feminism, isn't a descriptive term when exterminating minorities is all you want. Neo-Nazis are the only ones who pull shit like that.
>>5429019
>Your movment is literally claiming that lgbt people are pedophiles who want to kill children and women.
>please fuck my face I'm a retard
Let's see what the most radical feminists actually have to say about LGBT.
>>5429030
>>5422487
They don't come up short to men. They are doing ridiculously well, what with all the governmental assistance and quotas...
The problem is that they're fucking retarded and only compare themselves to the top 5% of men. Of course they think they have it bad when they do that.
But if you're going to do that, then the average man is doing worse than an auschwitz prisoner.
I think I'll stop now, should be enough.
I hope it's enough "nuance".
>>5429017
>The situation serves as sufficient proof for me
Then you're a retard.
>I understand women's voices don't count for you
You're obsessed with maintaining the belief that all of your political opponents hate women and are out to get them. If this were a man accusing a woman of tape, my position would be exactly the same.
>or merely the Wikipedia article on anti-porn feminism
I found this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipornography_Civil_Rights_Ordinance
Obviously I don't think anyone should be coerced into porn, but I don't think there's any interpretation of the "trafficking of pornography" section I could get behind. People should be able to produce, share, and view porn, and consent to act in porn.
>Go call someone a nigger and expect not to be fired
Again, I think every case requires special treatment. I don't think every use of "nigger" should result in immediate termination. People make mistakes, and I'm very anti-punishment in general.
>>5428910
I think that gender-segregated schools would disadvantage gender nonconforming people (since say a gender nonconforming boy might do better with teaching methods aimed at girls), and would also impair the social development of those who don't really socialize much outside of school. It would probably be better to just make sure there's a balance between male and female teachers.
>>5428912
>sex-negative feminism
Using that term shows how ignorant you are. It's like calling pro-abortion-rights folks anti-life.
What term would you prefer then?
>>5428959
The freedom to make and view rape porn is insignificant compared to several far more important freedoms that people are denied. And a lot of the more extreme porn is reported to be produced in an unethical manner.
>>5428959
>He called her a slut.
And that's disruptive, disrespectful behavior, which companies are well within their rights to fire someone for.
>>5428978
>You can blame everything on your own personal bugbear if you want, the rest of us will be over here trying to understand the nuance of these issues.
There is nothing nuanced about refusing to even contemplate cultural gender norms.
>The problem with this one is that you think the boys are acting poorly, and not just acting like boys. In fact, I bet when I said "acting like boys" your first thought was something along the lines of "so mens natural state is to be abusive rapists?", right? You associate boys behavior with bad behavior, you treat them like defective girls and then wonder why they end up fucked up.
Because historically, "boys will be boys" has often been used to excuse abusive or misogynistic behavior, and to say that we shouldn't make any effort to encourage boys to change behavior.
>>5429017
>brainwashed
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/drop-the-t/
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/tag/hero/
Bullshit
Your own campaigns openly admitted to pushing this propaganda in Houston. You talk about /pol/ but you're indistinguishable from their fringe.
>TIL white cis het middle- and upper-class men are a minority group
Unless you claiming lgbt is really your evil white men, you're bullshitting
You're spamming posters in how lgbt people are pedophiles out to rape good white women and children. You're even doing it by teaming up with old white men. The last time propaganda like yours was promoted was during Krystallnacht. You aren't even being subtle about wanting minorities dead now.
>>5429066
Well, what would you expect? Feminists are so vile they'd rather tear a shelter down than let it benefit even a single man. They're working through hate and nothing else, they're not rational.
The only good thing is that feminists are being so insane as of late that people are finally starting to treat "feminist" as an insult.
>>5429063
>compared to several far more important freedoms that people are denied.
Such as? How does me viewing porn in my own home deny any freedoms to anyone?
>reported to be produced in an unethical manner
Then punish those producers, and let people who are producing porn in an ethical manner continue on in peace.
>>5429063
>since say a gender nonconforming boy might do better with teaching methods aimed at girls
A gender nonconforming boy is still a boy and still has a brain that operates like a boy's brain. Well, assuming you meant a non-binary or faggy boy, and not a transboy.
He'll get a bit bullied (assuming the school has not taken measures to ensure bullying does not happen) and might not make some friends, but he would LEARN well, yes.
A transboy would still have a girl's brain and would also benefit more from an institution that is made from the ground up to teach girls.
>>5429090
>Feminists are so vile they'd rather tear a shelter down than let it benefit even a single man. They're working through hate and nothing else, they're not rational.
I've actually read that some feminist groups have made a substantial effort to support men's shelters, though unfortunately I don't remember where.
>>5429097
>Such as? How does me viewing porn in my own home deny any freedoms to anyone?
It denies freedoms to those who suffer from the unethical production of porn, which is encouraged by people's consumption of it.
>Then punish those producers, and let people who are producing porn in an ethical manner continue on in peace.
We can certainly do that, but it would still essentially constitute censorship by denying those producers the right to continue making porn.
>>5429017
>So you believe that males are naturally inclined to act like assholes
No, I believe that women don't understand boys hyperactive mentality and the way they naturally learn, and thus characterizing them as "assholes" and punishing them for your own inability to empathize is extremely harmful to them.
>Because historically, "boys will be boys" has often been used to excuse abusive or misogynistic behavior, and to say that we shouldn't make any effort to encourage boys to change behavior.
"used to excuse abusive or misogynistic behavior" ... such as?
>>5429110
>Well, assuming you meant a non-binary or faggy boy, and not a transboy.
There really isn't a clear dividing line between those two categories.
>A transboy would still have a girl's brain and would also benefit more from an institution that is made from the ground up to teach girls.
Right, however unless we have some way of reliably recognizing people as being trans at a very early age, they're going to end up being sent to a school based on their biological sex at first and will be put at a disadvantage because of it.
>>5429114
>I've actually read that some feminist groups have made a substantial effort to support men's shelters, though unfortunately I don't remember where.
I'd love to see that. For now I feel like I could count in a single handle the number of feminist leaders that couldn't be described as "man-hating lesbian".
Unfortunately, feminism has been hijacked by those types. The best is to allow it to disappear, now. Maybe egalitarianism can then rise and do the job that feminism was supposed to be doing.
>>5422444
>trips of truth
>>5429122
>thus characterizing them as "assholes" and punishing them for your own inability to empathize is extremely harmful to them.
So you think behavior that's clearly assholish should just be tolerated, encouraged, and not criticized?
>>5429122
In extreme cases, I've heard of it being used to excuse rape. More commonly, it's stuff like saying girls are inferior or gross or otherwise "othering" them. And I've also heard cases of it being used to excuse boys being violent or needlessly rough with other boys, and bullying in general.
>>5429114
>I've actually read that some feminist groups have made a substantial effort to support men's shelters, though unfortunately I don't remember where.
Any feminist who attempts such a thing will very quickly find herself excommunicated, unless she frames it as a "let's start a men's shelter to protect men from their toxic selves" deal.
>>5429110
>A transboy would still have a girl's brain and would also benefit more from an institution that is made from the ground up to teach girls.
Bullshit according to all the science on the issue.
Why again is it that you want any research that contradicts yours banned, but you're cool with pushing scientifically disproven Lysenkoism?
>>5429114
Which obscenity laws criminalizing m/m depiction of sexuality how? Looks like you're just using it as a way to push the sort of antigay propaganda laws they have in Russia.
>>5429133
>unless she frames it as a "let's start a men's shelter to protect men from their toxic selves" deal.
Well that's kind of the idea in a sense, I think the supposed reason why feminists ended up creating men's shelters is because male culture has this whole idea of toughness and self-sufficiency where you're not supposed to ask for help, so other men weren't providing assistance to men in need since their whole view of masculinity told them that if a man needed help it was his own fault for not being masculine enough. Or something along those lines.
>>5429058
>If this were a man accusing a woman of rape
You see, women generally don't rape men.
>Civil Rights Ordinance
Yes, that's the proposed law being discussed and analyzed in Pornography and Civil Rights. The proposal is a civil law, not a criminal law, meaning that nothing gets outright made illegal; rather individuals who think they have been harmed in a specific way are given the chance to sue those who they think caused the harm, then they have to prove that harm.
>>5429063
>What term would you prefer then?
That's been discussed above.
>>5429066
What makes you think that excluding transsexuals is a popular opinion among radfems?
I've heard that from one unknown radfem supporter on Twitter so far and thought of responding but didn't do so yet; don't hold any power among radfems myself. (Am a dude anyway.)
>Unless you claiming lgbt is ...
Do you really, unironically believe that radical feminists are blaming LGBT as the root of all evil? I just don't understand how deluded one can possibly be.
>You're spamming posters in how lgbt people are pedophiles out to rape good white women and children.
You're really just a /pol/ shitposter posing as /lgbt/, aren't you? I don't think anyone can be this retarded.
>Kristallnacht
Ooooh, Godwin'd.
Just stop posting.
>>5429122
>"used to excuse abusive or misogynistic behavior" ... such as?
Such as raping women.
You know that getting someone drunk to have sex with them is rape, I hope.
>>5429145
>Bullshit according to all the science on the issue.
>Why again is it that you want any research that contradicts yours banned, but you're cool with pushing scientifically disproven Lysenkoism?
I think they were just using the wrong terminology. I think by transboy they meant mtf (since unless society was really progressive on trans issues, mtfs would by default be put into boy's schools unless they start transitioning really young).
>Which obscenity laws criminalizing m/m depiction of sexuality how? Looks like you're just using it as a way to push the sort of antigay propaganda laws they have in Russia.
Where did I say anything about criminalizing porn based on what sexuality it is? I merely said that porn produced unethically (i.e. that involves actual nonconsensual abuse or rape of the actors) should be banned - has nothing to do with whether it's straight or gay.
>>5429149
Actually, feminists keep legally attacking any males that end up opening male shelters. They also attack male-only schools and whatever ends up being made.
Additionally, women's shelters get help from the government. Men's shelters mostly don't.
>>5429153
>That's been discussed above.
You're referring to calling it anti-porn? Is that really accurate? Is pornography the only part of sexuality that "sex-negative" feminists have an issue with?
>>5429153
>You know that getting someone drunk to have sex with them is rape, I hope.
But that applies the same regardless of gender, right?
>>5429090
It's funny because going by their own websites it looks like they've dropped all presence of not outright hating gay men and trannies.
I wonder what made them shift their rhetoric to some sort of "gas the fags now!"
>>5429162
>Actually, feminists keep legally attacking any males that end up opening male shelters.
And how many of these males were part of "anti-feminist" groups?
>They also attack male-only schools
Because male-only schools are an example of sex segregation, something feminists seem generally opposed to. Are these same feminists also in favor of female-only schools?
>>5429158
>that involves actual nonconsensual abuse or rape of the actors
So you mean videos that pretty much have nothing to do with any developed country.
Even disgusting porn producers like Facial Abuse do it right. The girl agreed to the whole thing and even if she changed her mind she'd be able to just get up and leave. She wouldn't get paid for leaving midway, of course, but she's not actually being raped nor nonconsensually abused.
Yes, india shares videos of actual rape as if it was just amateur porn. Our laws, however, already make that illegal.
>>5429166
>You're referring to calling it anti-porn? Is that really accurate? Is pornography the only part of sexuality that "sex-negative" feminists have an issue with?
See the follow-ups.
>But that applies the same regardless of gender, right?
Right. Your point being?
>>5429183
>So you mean videos that pretty much have nothing to do with any developed country.
I've heard it's mainly an issue with some online porn, where there isn't much information available on where/who it came from.
>Our laws, however, already make that illegal.
And that's how it should be. Nonetheless, there are some who could argue that is a form of censorship.
>>5429132
>So you think behavior that's clearly assholish should just be tolerated, encouraged, and not criticized?
Define assholeish here, please.
>In extreme cases, I've heard of it being used to excuse rape.
I've heard of a few cases of this but whenever I follow up on it it's actually a case of "one of our highschool quarterbacks raped a girl but the school gets most of it's money off of the sports team so we're gonna cover it up" which is far, far worse. Focusing so much on some little figure of speech as if that's the transgression here dimishes the actual problem.
>More commonly, it's stuff like saying girls are inferior or gross or otherwise "othering" them
This is just loony, especially when it's almost always used in a context that implies boys are actually held to a lesser standard because they just can't help being animals.
>And I've also heard cases of it being used to excuse boys being violent or needlessly rough with other boys
Here's the rub. Boys are rough with other boys, it's a large part of how they bond, especially when young. The problem is that women just can't understand that, but nonetheless are put into positions where they can punish them for it. They hold boys to the girl standard and punish anyone who doesn't conform, and then wonder why they start dropping out of school or the suicide rates shoot up.
>>5429063
>I think that gender-segregated schools would disadvantage gender nonconforming people
This is actually a very fair point.
That radical feminism openly contradicts medical science where transpeople are concerned is reason enough to be suspicious of the fact that mainstream feminism hasn't done more to suppress TERF ideology.
>>5429187
>Right. Your point being?
I've encountered a lot of anti-feminists on places like Reddit who claim that feminists don't consider it rape if the genders are reversed.
>>5429193
>radical feminism openly contradicts medical science
False. Even some TERFs in the literal sense (i.e. choosing not to accept no-SRS transwomen in women-only places) do not deny that transgenderism is a thing.
>>5429207
Well, dear, even the catholic church stopped denying evolution once the evidence for it was too overwhelming. Doesn't mean they like it, though.
>>5429191
>Here's the rub. Boys are rough with other boys, it's a large part of how they bond, especially when young. The problem is that women just can't understand that, but nonetheless are put into positions where they can punish them for it. They hold boys to the girl standard and punish anyone who doesn't conform, and then wonder why they start dropping out of school or the suicide rates shoot up.
Basically, what I'm talking about is that not every boy wants other boys to be rough with them, and even after communicating that clearly to the other boys they still play rough with him. At that point it's in the category of bullying, not bonding. And when the authorities, the teacher or whoever finds out about this, they do not view it as a problem or make an effort to stop it, because "boys will be boys". This attitude teaches boys that they should just accept being bullied and beaten up for no reason. It's boys themselves who punish those who don't conform with their view of masculinity, and that is something that likely contributes to suicide or other psychological problems among boys.
>>5429149
Which is part of the problem. They play switcheroo to try to pin men's problems on themselves so as not to admit that women are capable of being abusive.
In reality, men don't flee their homes and need shelter because they're feeling depressed and can't talk to anyone, they flee their homes because their SO is talking crazy and threatening him with a knife.
>>5429182
>And how many of these males were part of "anti-feminist" groups?
They attack women who try too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
>>5429217
>In reality, men don't flee their homes and need shelter because they're feeling depressed and can't talk to anyone, they flee their homes because their SO is talking crazy and threatening him with a knife.
Right, but our social norms basically say that men should be self-sufficient and not ask anyone for help, so men who need to run away from abusive relationships aren't encouraged to seek help, but to handle things on their own. And those same social norms encourage people to think less of a man that asks for help.
>>5429217
>They attack women who try too.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
There's no reason why a woman can't be an anti-feminist. And according to Wikipedia she's affiliated with AVFM, often regarded as an anti-feminist group. Whether she herself is anti-feminist is another matter.
>women never lie about rape
Holy fuck the delusion.
>>5429153
>popular opinion among radfems?
That's exactly what your websites and advocacy group are pushing. They were very politically involved in HERO. And I'm pretty sure you're the Ditum fanboy from before, she says similar things to the lgbt are child rapists stuff from your HERO posters. Just in a more oblique way because her obligations as a Labour party spokesman.
>Do you really, unironically believe that radical feminists are blaming LGBT as the root of all evil?
That's exactly what your radical feminist website claim. Why can't I take them at face value?
>You're really just a /pol/ shitposter
Funny that considering that along with the pol-tards that spammed it, your group was the only one to push that petition claiming that trans would somehow enslave and subjugate women and children.
Speaking about that, weren't you also the guy who posted that manifesto here about how taking hormones was some sinful act that was setting women back?
>>5429215
I'll concede this, as this does happen.
Personally I view this more to do with the negligence of the teachers than anything to do with masculinity, however. Physical bonding and consistent bullying come from two very different places, and often it's accidentally going too far in their roughhousing that teaches boys about boundaries more effectively than any consent class ever will. It's just dangerous to men's development to villify their natural instincts, no matter how distasteful you may find them.
Can't we sidestep the problem of censorship vs freedom of speech, by encouraging ethical porn through positive incentive, or "raising awareness" ? (rather than banning things). Will not work for everybody, but some people already "shop responsibly" for cloth/food/whataver.
>>5429232
>Being anti-feminism means you're an acceptable target for attack.
>>5429207
No, they just demand the requirements for medical transition be made more onerous and bodily autonomy be banned and in European countries actually help shut down doctors who follow the liberal international guidelines.
The result being that therapists force their patients to act as gross stereotypes and then radfems have the gal to blame transsexuals for the very thing they forced them into when they took away their individualism and bodily autonomy.
It's as twisted a relationship as you can get.
>>5429246
>t's just dangerous to men's development to villify their natural instincts, no matter how distasteful you may find them.
Sure, however it's not so much as vilifying natural instincts; I don't think there's anything wrong with playing rough when it's consensual. However people tend to assume all rough playing to be consensual, hence "boys will be boys", and thus failing to teach boys about boundaries and the importance of consent. In my experience, the boys who "bully" by playing rough as I described, do not see themselves as bullying, they think they're bonding, despite the fact that the "victim" has told them to stop. They're not trying to make the "victim" feel bad, but as far as the victim is concerned that really doesn't matter. They're still being physically interacted with in a way they don't like, and telling others to stop doesn't do anything.
>>5429255
Yes, up to a point. I mean sure, sending death threats and so on is going overboard, but you really expect people to just totally ignore a group whose ideology is totally opposed to their own?
>>5429268
>but you really expect people to just totally ignore a group whose ideology is totally opposed to their own?
Of course not, so long as you accept that feminism is also an acceptable target.
>>5429278
>Of course not, so long as you accept that feminism is also an acceptable target.
Obviously. Like I said death threats are a bit extreme, but ideologically opposed groups protesting against each other is definitely something to be expected.
>>5429232
>There's no reason why a woman can't be an anti-feminist. And according to Wikipedia she's affiliated with AVFM, often regarded as an anti-feminist group. Whether she herself is anti-feminist is another matter.
>Erin Pizzey founds the first legit women's shelter to help victims of domestic violence
>recieves nothing but support, gains international fame
>realizes throughout the ordeal that there are many men in the same situation, attempts to start a shelter for men as well
>gets villified in the media, recieves constant harrassment from feminists for suggesting that women can also victimize men, and is eventually driven out of the country due to actionable death threats that required the bomb squad's intervention
>30 years later, an MRA website is founded
???
>>5429213
Except that radical feminists never denied transgenderism.
Please stop spouting bullshit on things you're ignorant about.
>>5429238
>That's exactly what your websites and advocacy group are pushing.
I read Feminist Current, Feministing, SocImages, follow these on Twitter, etc., have read books by Dworkin, watched many speeches by MacKinnon and Dines, and I can tell you're speaking bullshit.
Whatever boogeywomen you have in mind, they aren't representative of radical feminism.
>>5429256
Sounds like utter bullshit fed to you by the /pol/tards. Who do you think are more opposed to gender stereotypes than radfems?
>>5428734
Two sentences in and it's already pure blanket statements. Utterly delusional.
>>5429306
From what I've seen, radfems are opposed to gender roles, and they use that as an argument for why trans people shouldn't be accepted. They think trans people transition because they're following gender roles too closely, and that they transition because they think being a feminine man means you're supposed to be a woman. They see it as confusion over gender roles, and the existence of hormone treatments and so on as an enforcement of gender roles.
>>5429268
Ignore? No. Still treat like they're people? Yes.
>>5429261
Agreed. I suppose I'm a bit touchy about this subject and assumed the worst in what you're trying to say. The whole issue is a major pet peeve of mine.
>>5429306
Sure, we'll be integrated into the community -- on whatever terms the community and its radfem population decide are appropriate, as opposed to being integrated into the community on our own terms. You know, like everyone else.
>>5429329
A certain (small?) part of radfems think that way, yes. Most, from what I'm aware, are not for excluding trans people altogether, and instead merely criticize too aggressive pushing of the trans narrative.
There was a website showing many examples of ludicrous interpretation of the idea of transgenderism, like "our little son likes to play with barbie dolls so it must mean he's really a girl", but I forgot what the website was and can't find it right now.
>>5429342
That depends entirely what your own terms are. Do they include attachment to a restrictive gender binary and gender stereotypes? Does it include the belief that wanting to wear dresses, make-up, stockings, and high-heels are connected to biological femaleness?
No? You're good then.
>>5429344
>merely criticize too aggressive pushing of the trans narrative.
What exactly counts as "too aggressive"? Sounds pretty subjective to me.
>There was a website showing many examples of ludicrous interpretation of the idea of transgenderism, like "our little son likes to play with barbie dolls so it must mean he's really a girl", but I forgot what the website was and can't find it right now.
And it seems like TERFs/gender-critical feminists base their entire view of trans people on stuff like that, which even most trans people think is crazy. Yet they use it to characterize trans people as a group and argue that they're all delusional and/or fetishists.
>>5429306
Not strawmen when it's your advocates pulling shit like >>5429066
>Current
Still goes with the lgbt=rapists meme from trender, just more oblique about it
>Feministing
Is actually a liberal site but it looks like you prove that a lot of their readers are useful idiots to the radicals who would want to see lgbt killed.
>Dworkin
Like the one she and her ex gay husband wrote about how people chose to be gay out of misogyny?
>utter bullshit
Why? It's your sites like the one in >>5429066 that long and write to doctors urging them to reject the WPATH guidelines they deem to be too liberal. In the states, Raymond WA one of the few academics assigned for a Senate committee on analysing medical treatment and it was her report that helped the state ban private health insurance from covering this. Also helped shut down the early informed consent clinics. Beaurucratic groups your last lab goverment put in power still Labour to shut down any doctor who would dare follow the liberal international guidelines. https://archive.loveisover.me/lgbt/thread/5384634/#5385014
>Who do you think are more opposed to gender stereotypes than radfems?
If by opposed to stereotypes you mean try to criminalize people swallowing hormones.
Your idea of ban stereotypes is to take away my individualism and control over my body. If it were up to you, you'd make my body rot into something disgusting. As if controlling the shape my body has would ever do anything to hurt you in stereotypes.
>>5429351
How do you reconcile avoiding gender stereotype and personal taste (for possibly gender conforming things) ? It seems to me doing the opposite of your expected role is still being defined by it.
>>5429389
>Is actually a liberal site but it looks like you prove that a lot of their readers are useful idiots to the radicals who would want to see lgbt killed.
What do the readers have to do with anything? Huffington Post is a liberal site but 99% of the commenters are far right wing conspiracy theorists.
>>5429351
Don't care the least about clothes but if you say looking feminine is evil, then you need to take a new look at your ideology.
>>5429344
>aggressive pushing of the trans narrative.
Right cause wanting control of my body and crippling body dysmorphia are obviously a grave sin against your religion.
Excuse men for not begging for forgiveness when people saying the same thing about abortions stirs outrage in your cause.
Why is it that you claim to be for body autonomy but then say it's evil to take meds and stuff that keep my body from turning into a man's?
Don't even care about roles so screw You and your religious fundamentalists.
>>5429399
You're a fundy pushing extremist groups that have stopped at nothing to try and kill lgbt people in places like Houston.
That shows just what their reader base is like. Even ostensibly liberal groups are full of people who'd march lgbt to the ovens.
>>5429383
>What exactly counts as "too aggressive"?
See >>5429344
>And it seems like TERFs/gender-critical feminists base their entire view of trans people on stuff like that, which even most trans people think is crazy.
I can see the less informed ones being prone to that, yes. I've once seen a radfem on Twitter (nobody popular) say she's all for dropping the T in LGBT, but all the popular ones who write articles and run websites and shit aren't like that.
>>5429389
Oh you must be the same retard I argued with the last time, who seemed to have a serious condition of paranoia and misinterprets absolutely everything he/she reads as "OMG SHE'S SAYING WE'RE ALL RAPIST MURDERERS OMG" after showing us quotes by women who, well, don't say those things.
You have a strange mind.
>>5429391
Lots of feminists are fine with high heels and makeup and shit. Some of the radicals certainly aren't, and probably have a deep hatred for icons of their oppression so it really is not their personal taste...
As a male, I like being a bit muscular, like swimmer/ripped style, not too much, and don't feel any shame over this.
Don't know if this answers your question.
>>5429400
>if you say looking feminine is evil
When the fuck did I even do that?
>>5429419
You really need to understand a person's position before trying to criticize them. You don't seem to understand my position (which I believe is a radfem position, being based on Dworkin's and other radfems' writings and speeches, mostly).
>then say it's evil to take meds and stuff that keep my body from turning into a man's
I literally didn't do this.
This discussion is getting painful as people are aggressively distorting the things I'm saying, so I'll probably bail out soon. Hopefully I helped some of the saner folks understand radical feminism better.
>>5429425
>You're a fundy pushing extremist groups that have stopped at nothing to try and kill lgbt people in places like Houston.
Uh, what have I ever done against lgbt people? Are you sure you know who you're talking to?
>That shows just what their reader base is like. Even ostensibly liberal groups are full of people who'd march lgbt to the ovens.
The Huffington Post commenters I'm talking about aren't just opposed to lgbt. They're completely opposed to anything liberal at all. They're clearly far-right conservatives, a group you wouldn't expect to be even slightly pro-LGBT in the first place.
>>5429442
>SHE'S SAYING WE'RE ALL RAPIST MURDERERS OMG
Your politicians do that exactly, just in a politician way.
>>5429066 if you want to see your rank and file activists pushing the lgbt are child rapists line to kill anti discrimination laws in Houston and then bragging about.
>I literally didn't do this.
Website you've linked to in the past said altering your body against nature is wrong and patriarchal, it's also involved with the group that was involved in putting fliers all over Houston claiming that HERO would bring all the lgbt pedophiles out of the woodwork.
>>5429471
Can you put on a trip so I can ignore your deluded bullshit?
You're linking an article on some Wordpress blog, complaining about the state forcing a school to allow a penised person to shower in the women's bathroom, and cliaming this to be evidence for all radical feminists claiming that transsexuals are rapists and murderers.
This right there is deluded bullshit, and this board shouldn't have to endure it. You're actively poisoning people's minds.
>>5429596
>Can you put on a trip so I can ignore your deluded bullshit?
Right after you do the same.
>>5429604
Test.
I'll drop it again if people should be to distort my views and all the typical bullshit. I'm on fucking anti-feminist central of the Internet so excuse my reluctance to giving myself a visible identity on the board.
>>5429596
>>5429624
>radical feminist complaining about other people actively poisoning people's mind
u fucking WOT mate
>>5429596
>"Penis bodied rapists in Muh stalls"
Yea, you're the one who brought that up not me
You got linked to them pushing Petitions that wanted to prohibit journalists from covering transexuals sympathetically and claimed they were after the women and children. Or at least that's what the advocate said.
Also linked to them organizing a campaign to paint HERO as a pedophile enabling bill.
Nice to see you think those things are acceptable. It's good you show everyone what you and your ideology stand for.
>>5429624
>my reluctance to giving myself a visible identity on the board
It's way too late for that. You're the resident, self-identified radfem. It's really easy to spot your posts.
Give a brief list of some things you believe and I'll tell you why it's retarded.
>>5429596
Seriously, Advocate doesn't think there's anything just about your advocacy.
>>5429643
>Except I barely ever post on /lgbt/ so thanks for letting me know there's more radfems here, it's encouraging to know that.
I never said you post here often.
Anyways, tell me what your views are. Feminists don't agree with each other on anything, so I'm not really sure what to assume.
>>5429647
>tell me what your views are
Thinking that a whole sociopolitical ideology can be put into a few simple bullet-points and then argued against is embarrassingly simple-minded, anon.
Start with Woman Hating and 'Pornography and Civil Rights', then move on to Right Wing Women and maybe Our Blood:
http://radfem.org/dworkin
Also watch talks by Catharine MacKinnon and Gaile Dines. (Many are on YouTube.)
>>5429647
>Anyways, tell me what your views are.
This. "Radical Feminism" doesn't tell us anything other than you're "radical" and a "feminist", but despite there being a dictionary definition of feminism (which is typically only paraded around when a feminist is insisting "you MUST be a feminist if you believe in gender equality!"), that is not what feminism as a political ideology is exclusively about.
>>5429670
That doesn't tell me what you, specifically, as an individual, believe. Or do you just believe in everything they do? I want to hear what your belief system is in your own words, not the words of other people.
>>5429670
>Thinking that a whole sociopolitical ideology can be put into a few simple bullet-points and then argued against is embarrassingly simple-minded, anon.
No it isn't. Any coherent ideology holds core values that can be stated in a few simple sentences. That's all I'm after. I want to know what you believe in the context of feminism.
>>5429674
Radical part usually means rejecting liberal principles such as natural rights, negative rights and individualism. Corrosion can be used to force things into being better.
Historically that's always been bad for minorities and they frequently end up scapegoats.
>>5429692
>corrosion
Coercion
Phones are fun
>>5429643
Said I don't like tripping, radfem friend. Looks like you're gonna need another way.
>>5429679
I don't think I have any major disagreements with Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Dines.
>>5429683
A "simple" definition of radical feminism goes through the term "patriarchy" which then is an incredibly complex topic. Do you seriously believe that politics are so simple one can just list their set of ideas in a fucking 4chan post and another person can explain why they're Objectively Wrong? This is incredibly childish.
In any case, I guess I could say my personal ideals come down to: people should not lust for power and dominance; those who do, need to be stopped from exercising unjust power and dominance; social institutions that uphold the power and dominance of certain groups of people should be abolished.
Can't even say I'm satisfied with that summary I just came up with. If your abstract ideals do not frequently change at face of new information, you're not pragmatic enough. Just in one year I transitioned from dogmatically defending free speech and "sexual liberation" to a very strong opposition to dominance-based sexuality and media organs that spread the idea that it's the only possible way of conceiving sexuality. More precisely, I've always had an individual commitment against anything dominance-based, but from lack of information and alternative ideas it never even occurred to me to hold that up as an explicit ideal, as high and mighty as the ideal of "sexual liberation".
Things are not simple like you think they are, anon.
>>5429709
I'm afraid I'll just have to identify you manually then, though it shouldn't be so difficult, given that I've seen few people as paranoid and deluded as you around here.
>>5429733
>Do you seriously believe that politics are so simple one can just list their set of ideas in a fucking 4chan post and another person can explain why they're Objectively Wrong?
Nothing about ideology is objective, but like I said earlier political ideologies that are coherent (by that I mean internally consistent) hold core values that you either agree or disagree with. Of course, there's plenty of details you can get into like how to gather support, execution, etc.
>people should not lust for power and dominance; those who do, need to be stopped from exercising unjust power and dominance; social institutions that uphold the power and dominance of certain groups of people should be abolished.
So you're basically an anarchist feminist.
>very strong opposition to dominance-based sexuality and media organs that spread the idea that it's the only possible way of conceiving sexuality.
And here's something I was looking for. Why do you oppose dominance-based sexuality exactly?
>>5429770
>Why do you oppose dominance-based sexuality exactly?
Let me cut this short: you will ask me for evidence that the cultural normalization of dominance-based sexuality leads to sexual harassment, rape, etc., then maybe I'll show you some studies that you will call bullshit and/or show opposing studies, or I just won't bother because I'm already aware that the behavior of a whole fucking society cannot possibly be studied in an empirical way, and in any case neither of us will be any smarter.
>>5429733
You're blaming individualism as an agent of dominance and subjugation when in real life, freeing people from coercion and letting them live their lives does more to liberate people from domination than anything.
>>5429744
Please, that coming after you or one of the links you've posted in the past said altering your body is some patriarchal ploy to subjugate women, never mind it doesn't even have anything to do with social roles.
>>5429808
>freeing people from coercion and letting them live their lives
How exactly do you free a woman from patriarchy? Do you relocate her to some sort of feminist-utopia-land?
>the links you've posted in the past said altering your body is some patriarchal ploy to subjugate women
Hello deluded idiot, so we meet again. Can you please for the love of deities put on a trip so I can ignore you? I don't want to deal with someone who has a serious condition of paranoia and claims things about other people's words that are factually false.
>>5429795
>I'm already aware that the behavior of a whole fucking society cannot possibly be studied in an empirical way
What nonsense is this? With an appropriate sample size, you can certainly study the behavior of large segments of society.
So far I have gathered that you oppose dominance-based sexuality because you seem to be convinced that it leads to more sexual abuse. But how can you be sure that the reverse isn't true? It is perfectly plausible that forced repression of natural fantasies will lead to more sexual abuse since those who want to engage in domination fantasies will have no avenue to let off steam.
By the way, you should seriously call yourself an anarchist feminist. It's 20x more descriptive although I'm sure plenty of other anarchists would disagree with you.
>>5429834
>It is perfectly plausible that forced repression of natural fantasies will lead to more sexual abuse since those who want to engage in domination fantasies will have no avenue to let off steam.
And what exactly makes you think that patriarchy/dominance based sexuality is wholly natural rather than conditioned?
>>5429855
Because men are stronger and do the penetration. As long as that remains true, dominance in sexuality will literally never go away.
>>5429834
>What nonsense is this? With an appropriate sample size, you can certainly study the behavior of large segments of society.
You will have to control for their existing cultural background, see how things change over several generations, and so on and so forth.
It's not plausible.
>forced repression of natural fantasies
I don't think many humans have a natural desire for interpersonal dominance that cannot at the very least be taken under control with a proper upbringing and cultural atmosphere. Again, you'd need to study whole societies over multiple generations to make an empirical observation on whether this is true.
And when an adult does have whatever fantasies for whatever reasons, I don't expect them to suppress these. I expect them to live them out in a responsible way. The glamorization of BDSM in all of popular media is most likely not even the doing of people with an actual BDSM fetish... (Ignoring the reasons of why some people *do* have a BDSM fetish.)
Oh and
>>5429834
>By the way, you should seriously call yourself an anarchist feminist.
The things I'm saying are mostly textbook radical feminism.
I'm not opposed to government taking a role in redistributing power so that those who have too much of it have to give it to those having too little of it. Though it's hard to trust a male-run government to do that, see e.g. Sweden I guess.
>>5429883
>Though it's hard to trust a male-run government to do that, see e.g. Sweden I guess.
Er, scrap that. Sweden is, indeed, not a male-run government. They're one of the most gender-balanced countries.
(Also my grammar was bad; I meant to give Sweden as a counter-example to "can't trust male-run government." Getting tired.)
>>5429876
>It's not plausible.
Sure you can. I doubt Eskimos are whacking it to anything you find abhorrent. It's not a perfect comparison that controls for every single variable (nothing will be), but you could find some data.
>I don't think many humans have a natural desire for interpersonal dominance that cannot at the very least be taken under control with a proper upbringing and cultural atmosphere. Again, you'd need to study whole societies over multiple generations to make an empirical observation on whether this is true.
But we have centuries of recorded history to look at. In literally every government in history and culture, there are always people who fight to grab power and work their way to the top. Do I think that most people have a natural desire to dominate others? No, but these people do exist, and I don't see how you could plausibly do anything to stop them unless you're in favor of coercion.
>>5429883
>>5429889
It's hard to trust ANY government to do that.
>>5429821
>How exactly do you free a woman from patriarchy?
First, summarize the essence of what this "patriarchy" even is. Next, what do you think a society without this "patriarchy" would look like? What are your (or feminism's) solutions for getting us from Point A (a world where "patriarchy" exists and is dominant) to Point B (a world where it does not)?
>>5429821
Obviously institutions shouldn't treat people poorly for who they are. That said, straight women in the states and Eu don't have it that bad by any of the demographic standards relative to other minorities. So maybe it's a bad idea to kick said minorities down in the hope that it somehow helps women.
>deluded
Funny coming from the guy who talks about a "Trans Agenda" every thread. Want to tell me why that site you linked last time that says its wrong to do have control over my body doesn't count?
>>5429883
Do you believe in equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
>>5429962
>>deluded
>Funny coming from the guy who talks about a "Trans Agenda" every thread.
No, what's funny is that in your defense against my statement that you're severely deluded, you've given me another piece of proof that you're severely deluded.
(It could also be that you're confusing me with someone else, but given your other posts I'm assuming that you really are so severely deluded that you actually managed to misinterpret many of my posts as that thing you say.)
>>5429951
>the essence of what this "patriarchy" even is
Cultural norms, social institutions, mentalities, attitudes, etc. that have a deep belief in gender stereotypes and encourage many kinds of nastiness based on these, reflecting some men's desire to dominate other creatures.
>what do you think a society without this "patriarchy" would look like
There would not be any inter-personal dominance. Including, for example, capitalism.
>What are your (or feminism's) solutions for getting us from Point A (a world where "patriarchy" exists and is dominant) to Point B (a world where it does not)?
I'm not doing any real activism so far. Stirring up a little bit of shit in my workplace, fantasizing of doing it a lot more, but not sure if I'll be able to pull it off.
If I manage to overcome some depression-ish issues I have and become more active, then well, I'll see if I can join forces with other radfems to spread the ideology as much as possible, hoping that it will One Day dominate the world by merit of being a good, stable ideology.
>>5429966
Truly equal opportunity would lead to equal outcome if there are no natural/intrinsic differences in the relevant groups of people, no? So I guess I'd say let us reach truly equal opportunity, and then it will either lead to equal outcome or a much weaker difference in gender roles.
>>5430006
>social institutions
What about social institutions that are biased towards women like courts?
>>5430012
Do you even know what percentage of rapes get convicted?
>>5429979
>Radfems are mad at aggressive pushing of the trans narrative.
>aggressive pushing of the trans narrative
>>aggressive pushing of the trans narrative
Which frankly I'm not sure what counts as aggressive to you but if you think people having basic rights should be contingent on not bringing up what your movement did in Houston with HERO then I don't know what to tell you.
It's funny because when it comes to not caring for social roles and wanting bodily autonomy, we should be on the same page.
>>5430019
Male-on-male rapes, female-on-female rapes, male-on-female rapes, or female-on-male rapes?
>>5430019
Sorry that facts disagree with your feelings.
>This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002
>>5430032
>https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml
>>Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians
>http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04/2-studies-prove-domestic-violence-lgbt-issue
Almost none if we're talking about the frightfully common womyn on womyn sexual violence.
>>5430031
Male on female.
Male on male happens in prison and none of the victims want to talk about it because thanks to our patriarchal culture, they get shamed for getting "effeminated".
I don't know much about female-on-anything violence.
>>5430032
Probably because women commit their crimes in less heinous ways, plus they get taken even less serious again thanks to our culture.
>>5430078
>I don't know much about female-on-anything violence.
That seems like something you should probably look into, doesn't it?
>>5430085
Do you have any good sources analyzing it from a perspective of systemic cultural issues?
>>5430078
>Probably because women commit their crimes in less heinous ways
Wow nice try there. The paper takes into account the same crime. Speculating baseless assumptions gets you nowhere (by the way how heinous a crime is often determines what charge you face exactly).
Blaming so much on this mystical "patriarchy" is disingenuous and discredits problems that both men face as well as problems that people in general face.
>>5430027
I find it funny he keeps dodging answering the question you've asked and instead resorts to insulting you.
Good to see these are rational and mature people.
>>5430101
Hello deluded idiot. Will you ever shut up?
>>5430113
First of all I just came to this thread.
Second of all, insulting people and plugging your ears will only get so far. If you want to accomplish anything in life you will have to eventually pull your fingers out and face the brunt of it.
If you want your silly movement to gain traction and garner support at some point you're going to have to stop lashing out at the people you're trying to convince of your opinions. People are naturally inclined to avoid others who are overly hostile and won't want to see the view points of people who viciously attack them.
Please give that some thought before you reply. Its truly not asking much.
>>5430113
It's funny cause >>5430101 wasn't even me.
And like I said, I don't like the idea of institutions treating people unfairly for who they are. I'm also whole heartedly for bodily autonomy and people having a say the management of their person, free from coercion. Don't especially love roles either. So really, we shouldn't be at odds here.
But honestly, as nice as equality sounds, all of the radical groups that claim to want it instead view minorites as scapegoats for what's wrong and they insist that by making their lives intolerable, they'll go out of the picture and stop being in the way. They've done it with HERO where they told the general public that lgbt was coming for their kids. They do that in medical treatment by pushing for restrictions that force people into dehumanizing systems that deprive them of their individualism and force them to act as social stereotypes.
From here it looks like they're willing to betray all their principles to get their scapegoats out or the way. It's almost like the way Marxism, even if it's nice on theory ended up destroying anyone who didn't fit in.
And you and other libfems or radicals who try not to be anti-lgbt react with fury when people point out what your movment is doing in Houston.
You either tacitly support the biggots or refuse to recognize they are problem and therefore your movment's sole action to lgbt are to do things that will get them killed or make their lives miserable.
I've no reason to praise you when that's all you offer us.
>>5430277
Indeed, I messed that one up, the post he was quoting was you, so that couldn't have been you.
I realized my mistake when I saw it was the quoted post screaming Houston/HERO.
I'm just too tired from other shit.
>>5430138
Sorry for mixing you up with the deluded idiot. He really is a deluded idiot who can't understand words and very very aggressively misinterprets and misrepresents what others are saying. Links me to barely relevant shit and then claims that radfems call transpeople rapist murderers, literally. Done this for a while now, in multiple threads, so I'll just ignore him.
FWIW I looked a bit into HERO and couldn't find any information about feminists having much to do with it, so until you prove me otherwise I'll assume it's your usual paranoia and delusions.
>>5430678
>He
She/he/whatever, sorry.
Tired. Going to sleep.
>>5430678
>He really is a deluded idiot
Passive aggressive at all?
>>5430777
What exactly is passive about calling someone a deluded idiot?
>>5433296
Well there's the part about making it more aggressive insults than substance. There's also the bit about going out of your way to call someone him after they mentioned taking hormones. Of course this is 4chan so it doesn't matter, but if you're claiming the moral high ground, then it looks bad to tear into people for believing your movement is out to hurt them.
>>5433309
>Well there's the part about making it more aggressive insults than substance.
This person has been claiming absolutely inane things for several threads, linking to articles that have barely anything to do with feminism at all, then claiming that radical feminists in particular literally call trans people rapists and murderers. It's just a bunch of paranoid reactionary drivel and I don't want to deal with that level of bullshit. It's the behavior I expect from nuts conspiracy theorists who filter everything through their strange mind and reach absolutely ludicrous conclusions.
>going out of your way to call someone him after they mentioned taking hormones
I *still* don't know anything about the sex nor gender of that person. Using male pronouns in that one post was the typical mistake of using male pronouns by default when you don't know anything about someone. (Normally I avoid that in all settings, not just on /lgbt/ either.) I take it you're implying they're a trans woman, but either way I don't care. I'll go on to use "he/she", "she/he", or "they" as I always do. (I would also feel especially bad calling someone "she" while showing disdain against them, since I want to have absolutely nothing to do with contempt against women. No, this isn't rational; of course I realize there are women deserving of contempt, it's just that it feels wrong due to social context.)
By the way, can anyone explain to me what Houston/HERO even has to do with feminism at all? Because I couldn't figure it out. I mean, as much as I already know this is just screaming by a deluded fool, I just can't get it past myself that I blatantly ignore the things they say. I still find myself trying to read the articles they link and try to figure out why the hell they would make them see feminists as the devil.
>>5430678
>HERO
You already got your links to the fliers they put on Houston >>5429066 or their boasting about how they killed the antidiscrimination ordinance. Everyone in Houston and this board for that matter knows how they won by telling the public that lgbt people were coming for their kids.
It's a fact that those same Gender Critical feminists who's praises you've been singing have dropped any subtlety and are pushing 1930s erra propaganda fliers about their minorites.
Your response to that: talking about men invading the women's showers. You call people pol, but you talk and argue just like the. You even can't take any criticism of your ideology.
>paranoid reactionary drivel
Really, then what do you call your trademark catchphrases then? Every time you've come here it's always to talk about the trans agenda and how we're hurting your women despite wanting nothing more than control over our bodies in peace. All I did was quote you in >>5430027 you got mad.
It'd be nice for you to explain why you aren't here just to talk down to lgbt people and scream at them the moment they bring up the shitty things you and your friends do.
>>5434221
>https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/drop-the-t/
>We are a group of gay/bisexual men and women who have come to the conclusion that the transgender community needs to be disassociated from the larger LGB community; in essence, we ask that organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Lambda Legal and media outlets such as The Advocate, Out, Huff Post Gay Voices, etc., stop representing the transgender community as we feel their ideology is not only completely different from that promoted by the LGB community (LGB is about sexual orientation, trans is about gender identity), but is ultimately regressive and actually hostile to the goals of women and gay men.
Care pointing out where the part about (radical) feminism begins?
>the comments/reactions on GenderTrenger
From a quick skim I see some women wanting to dissociate the L from the GBT because they want an autonomous women's liberation movement (of which political lesbianism is one part) not to be conflated with stuff related to sexual orientation. They also call them "our oppressors" because especially the G part is, well, males.
Then there's women complaining about how violence against women is being erased out in the media, etc.
Again, I would like you to show me some concrete quotes by radfems where they say that transsexual individuals are collectively rapists and murderers.
(cont. in next post)
>https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/tag/hero/
>The sticking point for voters was a simple one: The overbroad legal status of “Gender Identity” contains no specific characteristics whatsoever. That’s right! No specific characteristics. The sole characteristic of individuals protected by the legal status of “Gender Identity” is that the individual chooses to claim that legal status, and they can invoke it or discard it at any time or for any reason. In practice, this means that any individual can escape charges of indecent exposure, trespassing, and voyeurism in sex-segregated spaces of public nudity (toilets, locker rooms) simply by stating their desire to invoke “Gender Identity” status. There is no medical requirement or psychiatric diagnosis or evidence of gender nonconformance required. No transgender “transition” (adoption of sex-stereotyped appearance or behavior) is required. Even the protected status of religious faith requires objective characteristics (evidence of duration, participation in religious services). Not so for “Gender Identity”.
>What could possibly go wrong with the introduction of a new protected legal status that has no characteristics but which is designed to eliminate the rights of women and girls to areas in public life segregated from males for our privacy and protection against sexual harassment and predation? What could possibly go wrong? Nothing at all, if you are willing to ignore the ever present gauntlet of sexual violence by men against women and girls of all ages, ethnicities, orientations, and yes, even “identity”, across all cultures throughout recorded history.
Are you going to be mad if I agree with this?
May I ask, once more, how you manage to interpret this as "transsexuals are rapists and murderers"?
>>5434221
>Every time you've come here it's always to talk about the trans agenda
MFW I haven't once used the phrase "trans agenda"
Why am I still replying to you? Why? WHY?
>>5434260
Posted on their own website and did everything they could to propagate a false flag petition started by /pol/.
Funny how you talk about them nonstop but turn out to be on the same page.
>>5434280
And you believe that post is by a radical feminist because ...?
>Based Milo is behind it
Oh the irony. One of the figures most hated by feminists is behind it.
You really need to set your targets straight. Your rage could be so useful, but it's absurdly misdirected.
>>5434260
Also claimed body autonomy would lead to women and children being enslaved. Never mind the part about how as the advocate and every other gay rights group reported, they not only were fear mongering but also demanded that journalists be banned from any sympathetic coverage.
False statements and wanting free speech banned. Can get much better than this.
>>5434276
>Radfems are mad at aggressive pushing of the trans narrative.
>aggressive pushing of the trans narrative
>>aggressive pushing of the trans narrative
Literally every thread
You're shameless
>>5434267
>In practice, this means that any individual can escape charges of indecent exposure, trespassing, and voyeurism in sex-segregated spaces of public nudity (toilets, locker rooms) simply by stating their desire to invoke “Gender Identity” status.
Patently false though.
Not only wouldn't antidiscirmination ordinances not allow people to evade prosecution, but in every single state they've been enacted in, they have never resulted in the wave of rapist and child predators you claim.
It wouldn't have eliminated chemical castration as a requirement either.
http://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.PGET63WvG
http://www.attn.com/stories/4080/transgender-bathroom-panic
>Are you going to be mad if I agree
No I think it best you show everyone what you and your ideology stand for.
If your hatred for anyone lgbt is great enough that you make verifiablly false statements that criminal justice and other experts have refuted, then it shows just where your priorities are.
Nobody will ever be part of a group that spreads false rumors for the sake of having people murdered.
>>5434267
>In practice, this means that any individual can escape charges of indecent exposure, trespassing, and voyeurism in sex-segregated spaces of public nudity (toilets, locker rooms) simply by stating their desire to invoke “Gender Identity” status.
No it fucking doesn't. This blatant misinformation pisses me off to no end Random people can't just make up their own gender identities and expect anyone to take them seriously. Genuine transgender people have actual evidence to support their claims since they are prescribed hormones and have medical records to verify their condition. This is a ridiculous argument from ignorant shitheads.
>>5434296
>look up Lambda Legal
>Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.
>has literally nothing to do with feminism
Guess whether I'm surprised.
>>5434303
>aggressive pushing of the trans narrative
>thinking this is a synonym to "trans agenda"
Mind you, the trans narrative is being pushed most aggressively by retarded media outlets that are fucking ignorant on transsexuality.
>>5434330
>fear of transpeople
Tell me where exactly feminists have claimed that transsexual women would attack women.
Oh wait,
>In practice, this means that any individual can escape charges of indecent exposure, trespassing, and voyeurism in sex-segregated spaces of public nudity (toilets, locker rooms) simply by stating their desire to invoke “Gender Identity” status.
They explicitly say what is almost the exact fucking opposite of what you're claiming.
At least I'm starting to see where your idiotic delusions are coming from though. Thanks.
Learn to read, and stop spreading paranoid drivel on topics you simply don't fucking understand.
>>5434348
Except that the law contains no other criteria than "identifies as trans."
THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING REASON THEY CRITICIZE IT, YOU KNOW.
>>5434289
>hate milo
>literally be the only people to support his position
Birds of a feather...
Going to bed again.
>>5434366
Thinking radfems support Milo is like thinking Jews support Hitler.
Literally.
You fucking idiot.
>>5434365
No, it uses Gender Identity. This is how it is defined as per the text of the bill.
>Gender identity means an individual's innate identification, appearance,
expression or behavior as either male or female, although the same may not
correspond to the individual's body or gender as assigned at birth.
https://archive.org/stream/equal_rights_ordinance/equal_rights_ordinance_djvu.txt
Now fuck off with your misinformation and lies.
>>5434362
What's your reaction to:
>Not only wouldn't antidiscirmination ordinances not allow people to evade prosecution, but in every single state they've been enacted in, THEY HAVE NEVER RESULTED IN THE WAVE OF RAPIST AND CHILD PREDATORS YOU CLAIM (emphasis mine)
Even if people who aren't really trans end up being allowed to use the women's bathroom, why is that exactly a bad thing if it doesn't harm anyone? And that's pretty much the way things are already, I think most places have no actual rule about which bathroom you should use.
>>5434370
>Thinking radfems support Milo is like thinking Jews support Hitler.
They don't support Milo, but they are both anti-trans.
There are already similar bills elsewhere with no case of men pretenting to be trans getting away with it.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533
It bears to repeat indecent exposure and other misdeamanors already exists to prosecute the alleged fake-trans sexual threats.
>>5434365
>>5434365
http://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.PGET63WvG
http://www.attn.com/stories/4080/transgender-bathroom-panic
Said otherwise. You'd still need antiandrogens and said laws like that have never been abused in any of the states they exist.
You and your friends have to pull verifiablely shit about lgbt rapists and nonexistent loopholes just to kill lgbt people and their ordinances.
Don't expect your jews to follow your sick national socialism.
>>5434392
>verifiablely shit
Verifiablely false
>>5434374
>innate identification, appearance, expression or behavior
Sounds fundamentally subjective.
>>5434382
>radfems are anti-trans
Fuck right off.
>>5434392
Both those are concerned with right-wing politics.
If you're now going to equate radfem to right-wing politics, let me invite you to fuck off back to 1980, because that lie is about 30 years stale.
Last reply for today. Bed sweet bed, I'm coming.
>>5434362
>lambda has literally nothing to do with feminism
Of course they don't. It took the intervention of lambda and other gay advocacy groups to call out the Radfem/milo petition on its nonsense
>>5434370
Stalinists like yours were plenty happy to work with the nazis and destroy Poland. Not unheard of.
>>5434399
>Sounds fundamentally subjective.
Do you think there's a perfect litmus test that we can perform to 100% verify whether someone is trans? Of course not, it's subjective to an extent.
Is it an unreasonable definition? Absolutely not. There's absolutely no way a sexual predator could deflect criminal charges using that bill by pretending to be trans. It's completely illogical, and the facts don't back up the false narrative either. Fuck yourself.
>>5434399
>Sounds fundamentally subjective
diagnosed by doctors you lying idiots
You don't just hate them, you hate gays and everyone who would've been helped by HERO. You've shown yourself for what you are.
>>5434399
>>radfems are anti-trans
>Fuck right off.
Maybe not radfems as a group, but that's just because "radfem" could potentially cover any feminist with radical views, regardless of what those views are. But that's obviously not what we're talking about here. We're talking about TERFs, gendercrits, or whatever you want to call them. And they most definitely are anti-trans. They insist that being trans is a result of being confused about gender roles rather than a neurological condition and oppose admitting transgender women into "women's spaces". There are more extreme examples of them physically attacking trans people and their allies.
Certain radfems are most certainly anti-trans. If you believe that you yourself are not, why don't you explain specifically what your views on trans people are, and let the rest of us judge whether they're anti-trans or not?
>>5434419
We're talking about trans rapist child killers. That's pretty self explanatory.
>>5434432
So they'd be perfectly okay with letting trans women into "women's only" events in spaces as long as they aren't "rapist child killers"?
>>5434432
>We're talking about trans rapist child killers
show me one
>>5434454
ps also provide evidence that no woman could ever be a similar raping child killing threat
>>5434392
Not interested in the argument with the retarded rad fem dude but I just want to interject my opinion on the subject.
From a criminal standpoint (used to be a burglar and robbed liqour stores/pharmacies amongst other things) raping someone in a bathroom is a fairly stupid idea. I mean if I were to look at it myself as a potential target to burglarize I would have to look at numerous factors;
1. escape route
2. density of the population
3. chances of being identified going in and out
4. risk vs reward (which of course for a rapist wouldn't be monetary so thats less relevant)
The first factor is easily where I would immediately nope. Take a public washroom in a mall for instance, there are camera's all over the mall so I couldn't conceal my identity without drawing suspicion. Considering that theres also only one escape route, a single entrance. One way in one way out. Not a safe bet at all.
Second point, this mall would most likely densely packed with shoppers. A lot of witnesses, and alot of people between you and escape. Throw security guards into the mix and you have a high chance of being caught a restrained.
Third point I answered in the first point, difficult to conceal ones identity without drawing suspicion.
The fourth point is where everything falls flat of course. If a man attempted to rape a woman in a public washroom it would a one off thing. There would be no chance of escape and there would be many witnesses. Not to mention he would most likely be stopped mid way through the act. This is extreme risk with very little to no reward. It doesn't make sense that someone would attempt this unless they were clinically retarded.
I mean I guess rapists arent exactly the smartest people since they risk imprisonment to get their dick wet for a few minutes tops. But from my understanding most rapes occur at night, in dark and secluded areas such as parkades and empty parks. Of course I could be wrong.
Thats just my two cents.
>>5422431
>>5434677
That doesn't rhythmically flow well at all.
God why are feminists so fucking terrible at everything? 0/10
>being feminist.
>>5434402
>radfems are now stalinists
>>5434408
>diagnosed by doctors
Not in the law.
>>5434419
>"radfem" could potentially cover any feminist with radical views, regardless of what those views are
No, you can read its definition literally on Wikipedia.
>>5434571
>dude who doesn't know what radical feminism is thinks it's retarded
>from my understanding most rapes occur at night, in dark and secluded areas
MFW
>>5434692
You're just pretending to be retarded, right?
Right?
>>5436488
A radical feminist is a feminist who holds radical beliefs, just like a radical Muslim is a Muslim who holds radical beliefs.
And unlike with skaters, radical ideology is always shit.
>>5436843
frankly radical muslims hold no beliefs not explicitly written about in the koran or a sunna.
for example that muhhamad sexually abused a 6yo little girl and raped her vaginally when she turned 9yo is written and held as an example of how men of islam should conduct themselves same with the 4 wife thing and all the jazz.
feminism is a radical notion there is no radical feminism because all feminism is radical.
>>5436843
>A radical feminist is a feminist who holds radical beliefs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
"Radical" and "liberal" feminism are names for specific ideologies. The names don't tell much about the content.
>>5436488
>Dismissing all the sources proving you wrong
The law specifically mentions presentation, would have been just for people who transitioned.
What's more as everyone linked, nothing about the law would have allowed me to evade prosecution and similar laws like it across the country have never resulted in the problems you claim.
Your friends killed HERO by flooding Houston with rumors about lgbt child predators and perverts when every criminal justice expert said that was bullshit.
You can't claim your movment isn't fundamentally opposed to lgbt people existing when you're on the same side as Fred Phelps.
>>5436934
Reading that article, most of those sound like pretty radical beliefs to me.
>>5436934
>>5436843
>>5436934
>radical
Which in your movment means categorically rejecting all the historical liberal concepts like natural rights and individualism and demanding coercive force be used to oppress the minorities you vilify.
It's indistinguishable from any fundamentalist movment.
Hell you and your friends are even calling lgbt perverts and pushing propaganda about how giving them basic rights will lead to all the good wholesome women and children being raped and killed . 1930s erra rhetoric.
Most religious people are more reasonable.
>>5437293
Practically says evil decadent liberalism is responsible for holding their good Aryan people back. Radical movments all fall into the same thinking.
>>5437285
>>5437316
Thanks for identifying yourself. I can safely ignore you now.
But let me get some laughs out of your post first.
>Which in your movment means categorically rejecting all the historical liberal concepts like natural rights and individualism and demanding coercive force be used to oppress the minorities you vilify.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh boy, thanks
>>5422431
kek indeed
Women and men at this time look like a yin yang made out of psychic and physical oppression.
At a physical level it looks like one gender is being completely oppressed with slight margins existing in the other polarity.
We're generally speaking psychically retarded. So male oppression isn't nearly as visible.
If we want to solve this we need to become more aware; potentially in a "supernatural" sense. And realize that fear and all of its byproducts separate and compartmentalize, and love and all of its byproducts unify and make whole.
>>5437492
Please, I'm not the one who spent the thread arguing that antidiscrimination laws will lead to waves of rapes and murders.
You're pushing verifiable bullshit and the links everyone gave you have legal experts and other similar laws proving that it is just a bullshit argument meant to go after lgbt.
You've already shown what your ideology stands for to everyone so why don't you let them make the decision?
Certainly by this point, there is no way you can claim that the same group that killed hero and vilified lgbt as predators, isn't anti-lgbt.
>>5437528
>the group that killed hero and vilified lgbt as predators
Didn't know we had ultraconservatives on /lgbt/.
Did you think you were in /pol/?
>>5437557
>ultraconservatives
Same thing, you were the only group to try and help Milo and /pol/'s petition.
Also the only people to work with religious fundamentalists to claim HERO would get every guy's women and children raped.
So really, I've to to ask. In praxis , is there any actual difference between you and other far right groups?
>>5437573
You should really change the "faggot" to "idiot", it's a lot more accurate.
>>5437584
Only after you take biggot for yours.
You're pushing propaganda that has been proven to be false. How can you claim that you and your friends aren't around just to go after minorities like lgbt?
>>5437593
>go after minorities like lgbt
Just FYI, I still have a lot of reaction faces left.
>>5422467
they think this is a safe space for them, They arent welcome. i'll deal with trannies before SJW scum
>>5437601
>>5437557
>Never refute the other posters when they post proof of your propaganda being false
>Double down on calling everyone who says you're wrong idiots
Yea...
So if we're going to go from debating whether or not something hurts others to dissing each other and cartoon pics...
>>5437654
>>5437662
>>5437666
God damn anon, calm down.
Look I'm actually kind of not feeling very good over blatantly ridiculing you.
But when you say radical feminists *literally* (and I mean *literally*) call transwomen rapists and murderers, and equate them to the right-wing and have such a hateful tone against them purely out of your ignorance about them, that really rustles my jimmies, you know.
Is there any chance you will read a radfem classic such as Woman Hating so that you get an accurate idea of radfems? Free PDFs can be found here: http://radfem.org/dworkin
Random excerpt in pic.
>>5437682
all i got from that text it the crazies are after my balls.
well you can't have it!
>>5437919
Hand me your balls you disgusting piece of filth.
>>5437682
>*literally* (and I mean *literally*) call transwomen rapists and murderers
Your friends went and said that anti-discrimination laws would lead to a wave of sexual predators, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Literal or not that's smearing lgbt with perverts in general public's mind, even did so while wrapping their rhetoric with the legitimacy of "feminism". Probably the most destructive thing they could have done.
You're wrong to call the people upset about loosing HERO ignorant.
> read a radfem classic
I'm not sure if I really sure if I want to spend Christmas reading a manifesto. How many pages is it?
Hardly ever read the primary source, even for theorists I liked like Veblen or the enlightenment liberals. Unless she wrote novels like Vidal, I'd rather a summary to her key positions.
>idea
It looks like she's said that people will suddenly stop caring about their bodies if you ban roles. Know it's not malicious, but I can't believe it.
Also, a lot of it seems to fall along the lines that you can legislate equality by forcing people to act the same. Individualism and eliminating coercive systems that constrain it are great, but that method won't bring either and I feel it'll just end with stigmatizing people who don't fit in.
Replacing something with more of the same. I'd rather we just stop bothering over what people do.
Granted I haven't read the whole thing. And I'm pushing my own values here.
Maybe since you know more on this, you can tell me if I've got the wrong impression.
>admit to being a deluded faggot
>expect replies
From now on I will Just Say No.
I have a very bad habit of not being able to ignore people no matter how many times they prove to be unworthy to argue against. This needs to stop.
>>5438180
I don't see what I did wrong? They were wrong about HERO, it'd be that easy to look up and verify the basic facts on their claims and you were given plenty of sources on that.
I asked you about Dworkin's ideology and said I'd like it if you could correct what I'm getting wrong.
And instead you go back to yelling over something. If you're trying to convince lgbt people that your ideology is their friend then you've done a terrible job at it.
>>5437919
Obviously wasn't mine if that's what you think.
>>5422444
This. I'm trans myself. I can't stand modern feminism.
>>5438229
btw not op but i just came to this board to pretty much test the waters for this particularly. well that and the fact that all boards get old after a while it's just regurgitating the same shit over and over so i move around.
/lbgt/ is the very people these sjw and feminist cunts say try to "protect" or pose to protect more like from dudes like me and my oozing unchecked privilege, yet you guys seem to be pretty chill and tell them to fugg off with their bullshit pretty consistently.
respect!
>>5438223
I didn't read your last two posts. I spent several days arguing with you and I have my limits. I also have a flu right now.
But the way I see it, the rage against legislature that gives transwomen unquestionable access to women's facilities is that this is yet another way to put the concerns of anatomical males above those of anatomical females. You *cannot* judge a woman for feeling uncomfortable sharing a bathroom, dressing room, etc. with someone who has a penis and/or otherwise looks anatomically male, just as much as you can't judge that transwoman feeling uncomfortable sharing their space with men. Two conflicting interests: anatomical males identifying as trans women, and original females. And whose interest is upheld by the fucking law? That of the anatomical male. That is certainly an outrage. The rhetoric about people attacking women and getting away with it was *mostly* used by right-wingies from what I got. When I do a simple Google search or look at the links you provided, they all address the right-wing rhetoric of "trans women will attack women," proving that false. Nobody on the feminist side is arguing against that. Your idea of feminists calling transpeople rapists and murderers comes from your weird confusion of feminists and right-wing politicians. It's very strange that you cannot tell them apart. Do you think that in every political discussion, there are two clearly defined polar opposite sides and if someone isn't on "your side" ("wants the law to pass") then they are absolutely part of the "other side"? No, there could be a dozen different reasons people don't want the law to pass. There have been whole articles, even books written about this problem of hypocrites on the political left claiming that radical feminists must be conservatives just because they have *any* arguments against porn and the like. When in truth radical feminists are the nightmare of right-wing politicians. E.g. radical feminists are opposed to obscenity laws.
>>5440288
(cont.)
You might want to read "The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism" which is concerned with this topic:
http://radfem.org/
And in this situation you are once again conflating right-wing politicians with feminists. They both have ideological issues with the proposed law, but for *fundamentally* different reasons. The political right has its chauvinism of wanting to protect women from predatory males (where transwomen are seen as *equivalent* to all other males; their transwoman status denied), whereas the feminists are pissed off at the law ignoring the voices of women who dare have any opinion of their own on the law. This is *entirely* different from the opinion of the political right. Women are pissed off at the law, no, the whole fucking political debate that happens entirely on terms of anatomical males -- those supporting the rights of transwoman anatomical males and those opposing the rights of transwoman anatomical males -- because the voice and opinions of women are simply being ignored.
Oh and if you asked me personally for my opinion, instead of constantly making assumptions based on this paranoid concept of "my political block", I would say we need gender-agnostic bathrooms everywhere, which everyone can use, and transwomen should only have their right to use the women's bathroom protected if they are sufficiently anatomically female, such as for instance possessing a vulva and not a penis. The likes of "Buck Angel" who are visibly male and yet have a vagina are an exception here. And the kind of transwoman who looks pretty much indistinguishable from other women but decided against SRS would in practice be fine since nobody will challenge her when she uses the women's room, though I'm not sure how to best encode that into concrete rules/laws, so maybe something would need to be done for that too. I'm not a law expert but I hope that gives you a basic idea of my position. I would guess that most radical feminists would agree.
>>5438223
>I asked you about Dworkin's ideology
I don't remember you asking any serious questions about Dworkin.
I searched the backlog and the only thing I could find was
>Like the one she and her ex gay husband wrote about how people chose to be gay out of misogyny?
Which is your typical anti-Dworkin propaganda by those who fundamentally don't get her position and most likely intentionally want to smear her and spread lies about her.
Upon which I suggested you read her fucking books.
No, no fucking body claimed that gay men become gay out of hate for women. Stoltenberg (her legal husband, purely for the sake of getting benefits from the state) was a homosexual himself, and together they analyzed misogyny in parts of homosexual male culture. Saying that men become gay because of misogyny would imply that Stoltenberg himself was only gay because he was a misogynist, which would obviously be bullshit, because he never stopped being homosexual all the way through his companionship with Dworkin. He simply was (er, is) a homosexual, you know, the kind who is born that way.
He's still alive and gives some talks occasionally IIRC.
>>5440313
>backlog
The thread I mean. IRC logic.
>>5440313
>Dworkin
an ungly fat rape fetishist manhater that wants to ban porn.
no thanks. porn is unstoppable and it's the fucking best thing that happened along with the internet to the human race.
>>5440525
Literally >>>/pol/.
>>5440540
what's your problem with porn?
>>5440579
It reinforces the idea that sexuality and sympathetic feelings should be separated.
Also read Pornography and Civil Rights, the part on porn in Woman Hating, etc.
>>5440594
This is why nobody likes feminists.
>>5440594
i'm sure cuck porn and gay porn and tranny porn and porn parodies, etc.. and especially pegging and male orgasm denial reinforces woman hating.
cause like there are miriads of types of porn out there and there is like 2-3 types that are explicitly about abusing and humiliating women.
good job on making yourself look clueless.
>>5440604
Why, because they're afraid of associating sexuality and sympathy? Fucking manchildren.
>>5440612
Go to PornHub or whatever your favorite mainstream porn site is and tell me what percentage of it is focused on women's body parts, focused on how great it is when women act like sluts and sexually subservient, focuses on how great it is to penetrate a woman hard in as many orifices as possible, focuses on ejaculating on her face, and so on and so forth.
Last I remember it's literally almost all of it. And sometimes the roles are changed, greeeat improvement, the solution to ending black slavery was clearly to enslave whites just as frequently.
>>5440653
>on how great it is to penetrate a woman hard in as many orifices as possible
i have news for you those evil gender traitor cis girls actually like that part it's pretty much what they are interested in porn and in the bed.
>focuses on ejaculating on her face
yeah that is a weird thing indeed fine example of a custom that is almost exclusively found in porn and not much in bedrooms. it was pretty much invented by the porn industry and sort of a custom to finish an act. but there are plenty of "creampie" vids or ejaculation on the breasts that serve the same purpose ie proving the dude actually enjoyed the ordeal.
>the solution to ending black slavery was clearly to enslave whites just as frequently
you can't possibly believe it's okay to try right a wrong with an other wrong? you seriously want to punish people who oppressed other people by oppressing them after they stopped with the oppression? people like you should be sent back to the past to explain this shit to slave owners WE cis white males defeated for you. it would be hilarious to watch to say the least.
i always knew you feminazi bitches were out for money and blood and not in the least for equality and progress. but none of you ever admitted it so plainly before.
>>5440688
>i always knew you feminazi bitches were out for money and blood
What else could you expect from people who want to be paid to express common human decency?
https://archive.is/vNBYO
>#GiveYourMoneyToWomen
>>5440288
>has a penis
Utterly irrelevant when there's stalls. Nobody ever wants others seeing their bodies so the only way that would ever come up is if you violate the privacy of everyone, women included for your crusade.
Starting a moral panic and telling the public to look out for rapists you're going in that direction.
>and/or otherwise looks anatomically male
Irrelevant, as much as everyone and I despise gross unpassing late transitioners like Miranda Yardley who go and invade women's spaces while looking like that, the fact is there are women just as man bodied and gross as them.
Unless you plan to treat the whole phenotype equally and throw out the gross old/manly looking women so everyone young and cute doesn't have to suffer their presence, then you were bullshitting and really didn't care about Manish ogres freaking people out and we're just throwing up another strawman.
>anatomical male
Biologically inaccurate when referring to someone who's secondary traits are female.
>Women are pissed off at the law
You mean a deranged straight man who barged in here to tell us HERO would lead to men invading all his precious women did.
How chivalrous of you.
>>5440302
>Women are pissed off at the law, no, the whole fucking political debate that happens entirely on terms of anatomical males
Mayor Annise Parker and other women wrote the bill, they believed it would preserve the rights of women and minorities.
Why does Mr. White Knight belive that women like Parker can't have agency unless he gets to scrutinize what they say? Doesn't sound very feminist if you ask me.
You've been given links to sources proving your fear mongering over men invading the women's rooms was bullshit and that such problems never occurred in the dozens of states who adopted such laws.
Instead you continue to talk about lgbt perverts invading women's spaces while insisting that women like Parker aren't fit to think.
And you use that lgbt to justify striping gay and trans people of their basic legal protections. Essentially indistinguishable from the fundies.
Thank you for being so candid Mr. Knight. You've done a great job at laying out what you and your ideology stand for.
If ever anyone here had any doubts, they only need to see your manifesto and find that radical feminism is no friend to facts, lgbt or women who transgress it's theology.
>>5440540
>Literally >>>/pol/.
>Insist women like mayor Parker can't make decisions for themselves without you and your ideology being there to protect them
>push demonstrably false claims over lgbt pervs invading women;kill law that would have protected lgbt and women
>insult everyone who asks about the specifics of your ideology
>faggots should support your ideology despite it trying to kill them
>2d girls while telling faggots to fuck off
So closet /pol/ it hurts. Know there's horseshoe but you've taken it to a new level. You've got problems, friend.
>this thread desu
>>5440579
Not the person you're replying to, but I honestly think it's pretty delusional to list porn among the best things that happened to the human race.
>>5440612
There are types of porn that don't reinforce woman hating, but most types do reinforce unhealthy attitudes. Porn itself isn't a bad thing, but when people base their whole attitudes towards sexuality on it it becomes a problem.
>>5440302
>undergo sex reassignment therapy = anatomical male
Something doesn't make sense there
>>5441046
Problem is if you want obscenity laws, they're always used against minorities or politically unpopular stuff. Ergo last time they pushed Those obscenity laws some feminists like, they were used to criminalize gay/hiv pamphlets.
>>5441046
>There are types of porn that don't reinforce woman hating
not many porn does most show men doing their damn hardest to please the sluts. it's damn hard work and there is a huge pay gap between males and females in the porn industry. favoring the women.
>but when people base their whole attitudes towards sexuality on it it becomes a problem.
there is no proof or evidence of this happening tho at all
most people know the difference between porn performance and sex.
leave porn and video games the fuck alone in fact leave everything people are paying for to have the fuck alone!
>>5441115
>leave porn and video games the fuck alone in fact leave everything people are paying for to have the fuck alone!
So if I pay for something, that means people don't have the right to criticize it?
>>5441163
it is more like if a great percentage of the population likes something enough to pay money for it then it's part of our shared culture and not to be fucked with.
unless it violates some higher order law or liberty that really can't be fucked with like kiddie porn or murder porn. just because some people would pay for these does not mean people or animals should be allowed to be harmed in the production.
if you accept that porn actors do it out of their free will and are not harmed then you can't object to porn. or prostitution for that matter.
>>5441163
criticize? hell yes go on criticize video games all you want.
move to ban it restrict it based on bullshit poc ideas in any way put mandatory quotas in effect either legally or by pressure on the industry?!
HELL NO! FUCK OFF!
>>5441115
>and there is a huge pay gap between males and females in the porn industry.
Of course, that's one pay gap you won't see feminists bringing up.
>>5441081
>if you want obscenity laws
Hearing this after having mentioned explicitly that radical feminists categorically reject obscenity laws, should give you a pretty good idea of why I'm so fucking enraged when arguing with some people here.
No matter what I say, some people have it planted deeply in their subconscious that radical feminists are somehow right-wing ultraconservatives who spread homophobia, transphobia, sex negativity, and most ironically of all, misogyny.
It's really fucking insane.
To recap, radical feminists:
- Have criticized the misogyny (or more accurately, obsession on a dominance/submission based mode of sexuality) in some gay communities and gay pornography in particular. They are not however opposed to homosexuality in any way; to the contrary, homosexuality is essentially a statement against patriarchal ideals of coerced male-female pairing.
- Have criticized the strengthening of gender stereotypes that happens due to some people's misinterpretation of transsexuality ("being a woman means wearing dresses and makeup") and have criticized some people's obsession over transsexual rights at the expense of women's rights. This does not mean they support discrimination against transsexuals; to the contrary, transsexuality is essentially a way of shitting on patriarchy by saying: fuck you, I live whatever gender identity I want, depending on what fits me most.
- Have argued for civil law remedies for women who could prove in court that they were hurt by specific publications of sadistic pornography. (Read "Pornography and Civil Rights" for an in-depth discussion.) They are also generally opposed to all porn that reinforces the idea that sex is something inherently dangerous, related to dominance and submission, "adult-only", and so on. On the other hand, they are absolutely opposed to obscenity laws because those laws have the very same implication that sexuality is *inherently* dirty.
(cont. next)
>>5441375
- Similarly, feminists are opposed to prostitution and many other things that construct a cultural conception of sexuality as something commodified, rooted in objectification as opposed to genuine interpersonal love and respect, etc. However they are fully "sex positive" in the sense that they wish for people to love each other as much as possible.
- And lastly, radical feminists are all about structural analysis of our culture, society, politics, economy, and so on, and shit on notions of "individual empowerment" which entirely ignore such over-arching cultural problems. That means it's very much a legitimate move for women's total liberation when you criticize a "slutty" woman for being that way. It does not mean that they want that woman to be harmed; they criticize her because while she may be happy with what she is doing, it causes this whole culture of "dirty sexuality" to be further propagated. This does not make them "misogynist", this makes them intelligent, and means they don't get fooled by shallow notions of "personal empowerment" when there are over-arching cultural, social, economic, political problems with the status of women.
>tfw transbian scum and only have a chance with a small subset of SJW types
>>5440288
This whole outrage is founded on the retarded presumption that trans women are somehow treated with priority because they're biologically male. It's so misdirected and gynocentric it almost comes off as delusional. Trans women don't benefit from male privilege in legal matters because they're fucking trannies. The sides supporting them (which are small and spread thin) treat them as women, and the sides fighting them treat them as either mentally ill men or subhumans. Trans women have less privilege than both cis men and women. They're actually treated with negative bias in the legal system and that's a fucking fact.
Also, why target trans women specifically and not trans men? I don't see cis men throwing a temper tantrum over the possibility that they might share a bathroom with an anatomical female. Maybe it's because nobody gives a shit about females breaking gender stereotypes but when males do it they are met with distrust and hatred. Seems pretty sexist tbhonest familia.
>>5441375
>radical feminists categorically reject obscenity
Bullshit, Stoltenberg filed suit with Canadian courts to have them criminalize m/m obscenity.
> Have criticized the misogyny (or more accurately, obsession on a dominance/submission based mode of sexuality) in some gay communities
So then being effeminate and feeling better by being in a relation with a man more "dominant" than you is wrong now?
You say you don't have a problem with roles but you're telling people they're in the wrong for being too effeminate or preferring certain partners.
>transsexual rights at the expense of women's rights
Never explained that. First you were talking about men using lgbt rights to invade women's rooms and rape with impunity despite overwhelming evidence everyone presented and laws elsewhere in the country never causing such a thing.
Then you talked about anti-discrimination laws helping "anatomical-men" hurt women, never mind that people who have medically transitioned wouldn't be "anatomical-men". It's not clear what you mean there other than using that as a justification to kill an ordinance Annise and the rest of the council said would have protected women in addition to lgbt.
>fuck you, I live whatever gender identity I want, depending on what fits me most.
It's body dysmorphia and taking care of one's body, not whatever cross dressing you're trying to twist it as. If you see things that way, then no wonder you find it so easy to frame them as perverted monsters.
And by the way, the fear mongering your friends spread about liberal doctors and "big pharma" do more to force people into regressive therapies that force people to act as disgusting stereotypes to obtain basic treatment.
Once again, you talk about individualism and not hating lgbt, but your actions say the exact opposite.
>les radfems
>sur 4chan
>pourquoi?
