The reason people are trying so hard to pass a bill banning trans women from womens rooms isnt transphobia
its misandry
they dont give a fuck what you identify as, they see transwomen as biological men, and feminism has helped teach up men are unruly savage rapists who cannot be controlled. and this bigoted irrational fear overrides respecting the identity of trans people.
Youre getting caught up in the hatred and fear feminism has spread and made an acceptable norm for people.
if there wasnt such an irrational fear of men, this never would be an issue. there wouldnt be any stupid theories about "men in disguise trying to rape women"
all of it comes down to fear of MEN. thats why no one gives a shit about transmen in mens rooms. no one fears transmen raping men, and they chose to go into the lions den, thats their own fault.
feminism and hatred/fear of men hurts transpeople too. end feminism. bring on egalitarianism.
>>5952792
>>5952792
No it's literally the opposite. Men are trying to control what constitutes a woman and if an individual doesn't satisfy their requirements for a woman, then they'll pass laws trying to force their dumbshit world view on people. It's not a fear of men, because transwomen are women, not men.
That's why literally no one is talking about transmen.
>>5952803
Yeahs thats a crock of shit. theres a ton of women feminists supporting the bills as a way to protect women. your spin is laughable. at least you tried.
>>5952803
>It's not a fear of men, because transwomen are women, not men.
But not to them. and people in general with a different perspective.
"transwomen are women" is a point of view, whether you like it or not. but thats even realevent because the feminists who want transwomen banned from womens rooms still argue under the perception they are men, and men are horrible. your point of view doesnt dictate their perspective.
and if you cant think outside of your own point of view and try to see from the opposing sides perpective to better understand thier point of view to better fight it, sit down and let the adults handle this.
>>5952806
TERFs exist and they're far more conservative than you'd think. I'd try and explain this weirdly patriarchal "protect our daughters" bullshit attitude that lawmakers use to mask their transphobia, and why it's really about controlling who gets to count themselves as a women, aka more of policing women's bodies, but you're literally incapable of grasping these concepts so just shitpost away
>>5952820
All youre doing is trying to put a spin on the obvious and more logical explanation.
"dictate femininity" bullshit. go back to fucking tumblr.
>>5952820
>"protect our daughters" bullshit attitude that lawmakers use to mask their transphobia
or maybe theyre genuniely but ignorantly trying to protect them and it just comes off as trasphobia because transwomen get caught in the crossfire?
your theory (and thats all it is) is extremely flimsy. not based in enough reality.
>>5952827
Just because it's too complicated for you to understand doesn't mean it's a spin.
>>5952839
No, they're not genuinely interested in protecting their daughters from rape because if they sincerely were they would be trying to pass laws to help defined women on college campuses across the country from getting raped because as it stands 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted while at college.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/11/18/rape-on-college-campuses-nearly-1-in-6-freshmen-women-are-assaulted
But you hear literally nothing about that because preventing rape is not what they're trying to do. It's transphobia, plain and simple. Those in power fear losing that power, and as transfolk gain more visibility and respect, conservatives fear a world in which we treat transpeople with the dignity and respect they deserve because it means they can't feel superior over people just because of who they are.
>>5952840
Maybe the fact that its so complicated means its just convoluted, when theres a more simple, more logical explanation.
like "rape culture is complicated", no it doesnt exist, its only complicated because people try to bullshit it as something real as much as possble. same for the idea that the western world is a patriarchy.
everything is "complicated" because it doesnt actually make sense, people dont understand things that dont make sense because they DONT MAKE SENSE so you just say "you dont understand it because its complicated" and call it a day.
>>5952840
>My argument is so sophisticated you won't understand it
Fucking great shit
Honestly if you're not gonna make an attempt to properly communicate ideas then just fuck off and don't post.
>>5952853
>No, they're not genuinely interested in protecting their daughters from rape because if they sincerely were they would be trying to pass laws to help defined women on college campuses across the country from getting raped because as it stands 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted while at college.
oh you mean like how theyve been trying to erode "guilty til proven innocent"?
nevermind how often the 1 in 6 stat has been debunked.
>It's transphobia, plain and simple.
plain and simple? but i thought it was complicated!
it being an irrational fear of men is plain and simple.
>>5952860
There's no point in communicating a point that you don't want to understand. I've explained myself and your rebuttal essentially boils down to
>NUH UH...
>>5952858
>If it's a nuanced and complex issue and I can't grasp the point by just reading a headline, it must be wrong
You must be a Trump supporter.
>>5952853
>Those in power fear losing that power, and as transfolk gain more visibility and respect, conservatives fear a world in which we treat transpeople with the dignity and respect they deserve because it means they can't feel superior over people just because of who they are.
citation needed. nothing but a baseless theory grounded in nothing but your own assumptions. yawn.
meanwhile, theres plenty of feminists openly saying exacty what i described. that they dont want transwomen in bathrooms because they believe they are men, and believe all men potential rapists.
youre gonna expect me to ignore what the feminists are saying themselves and instead believe your theory that cant even be proven?
puh-leese. get the fuck out of here with that creationist style thinking.
>>5952862
Motivations for transphobia are complex but yes, this is straight-up transphobia and misogyny. You see no one trying to block access to men's bathrooms. Just women's.
>nevermind how often the 1 in 6 stat has been debunked
You are patently wrong, but that's something you'll never believe because you'll never believe a woman over a man so why bother arguing
>>5952867
You didnt "explain" anything other than a flimsy armchair theory. nothing more. you wont be able to prove its any more valid than the idea its the fear of rape. like theyve said over and over and over again, politicians and feminists alike.
its not that i dont want to hear it, its simply that you dont have shit to back up your flimsy theory.
"im not gonna explain it to you because..."
excuses excuses.
>>5952874
Dude, TERFs are pieces of shit and regular feminists acknowledge them as such. I'm a feminist and I think the anti-trans legislation is stupid, so I guess you must be wrong?????
>>5952879
>You see no one trying to block access to men's bathrooms. Just women's.
because a transman is viewed as a woman, and no one fears a woman sneaking in to rape men. it actually validates my point further.
you talk about not being able to understand something complicated, but you cant see that? thats pretty obvious, i dont know how you missed it.
people are scared of men going into a womans safe space, not a woman going into a mans by her own choice.
>>5952887
theyre still feminists, and theyre TERF BECAUSE theyre feminists.
thier motivation to be terfs come from the feminists ideologies that man men eveil monsters and women por victims to protect, and that transwomen are biologically men.
>>5952879
>misogyny.
Its not misogyny though. misogyny is the hatred of women. transwomen =/= women.
>>5952820
>>5952792
You're probably right. Rads were among the architects for North Carolina's law.
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/north-carolina-pushes-back-against-transgender-mandate-to-eliminate-sex-based-protections-for-women-and-girls/#comments
Hates lgbt enough to help ban gay and trans ability to sue.
They're also oranizing drives there to harass prolgbt businesses and rights groups challenging the law.
>>5952900
b-but thats transphobia! some would say. but its not, which is why ill take "FORGET THE SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS, ITS REALLY TRANSPHOBIA" with a giant grain of salt.
>>5952887
And yet you do nothing to counter them and the only ones with a record of passing laws are them.
You've fallen into the same traps Christians did in letting the biggots speak for you.
>>5952888
You're coming to the wrong conclusion, and do you also realize how retarded it is that they suddenly DON'T care about a woman in a man's bathroom, which, by their rationale, would be the most likely to be raped. They don't CARE about women being raped. What they want is for transwomen to stop trying to be women, because they want to control who counts as a woman, because society has been policing women's bodies since forever. This is nothing new.
>>5952894
dude literally no one respects the opinion of TERFs. Want me to go ahead and say TERFs are misandrists? Sure, they are. But you're going to tell me that this guy hates men?
>>5952914
>But you're going to tell me that this guy hates men?
Nah, hes just protecting women, in his perspective.
>>5952914
respects the opinion of TERFs
And that's why you do nothing and let them write the justification for laws like this one. Nothing is as good as tacit support.
>>5952911
>And yet you do nothing to counter them and the only ones with a record of passing laws are them
Ya'll must be seeking out TERFs and actively listening to them over actual normal feminists because while I've heard shitloads of feminists decry anti-trans bathroom bills I've never seen or read anything about TERFs supporting it. I'm sorry I can't add parental controls to your internet but I can't stomp out what I can't see.
>>5952900
>>5952904
Yeah dude it's pretty cut-and-dry transphobia. Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. End of story.
>>5952914
>do you also realize how retarded it is that they suddenly DON'T care about a woman in a man's bathroom, which, by their rationale, would be the most likely to be raped
she chose to walk into the lions den. thats different from a man cornering a woman in an enclosed room with one exit.
dont be fucking stupid. youre just ignoring the obvious and trying to force your own view on it.
im not coming to the "wrong" conclusion, unlike you, im actually COMING TO ONE and not deciding what I want to be true because it benefits me most.
my conclusion is still more logical and based in reality than your theory. period.
>>5952936
>Yeah dude it's pretty cut-and-dry transphobia. Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. End of story.
nope. sorry, thats just a point of view.
>>5952920
Again, it's the possessive "protect our daughters" attitude. Women aren't complaining about transpeople in bathrooms (unless apparently you only read whatever websites this guy >>5952935 who won't stop bitching about TERFs reads). Women ARE complaining about sexual assault on college campuses. And yet NOTHING is being done for that.
>>5952945
>women arent complaining
>except these women that are complaining, but they dont count for some reason
>>5952936
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/north-carolina-pushes-back-against-transgender-mandate-to-eliminate-sex-based-protections-for-women-and-girls/#comments
You realize they're actively organizing a campaign there to support the "values" side and harass companies who came out against the law. Ditto with spam attacking wapo, times and observer editorials critical of the law. Calling congressmen and so forth.
I sure haven't seen that commitment from the "prolgbt" side.
>>5952943
>thats just a point of view
So you're willing to say that gender is ultimately made up and it's an individual's personal feelings that determine, what gender(s), if any, they feel most comfortable with? Cuz that'd be pretty good.
>not deciding what I want to be true because it benefits me most
You literally are though. You DESPERATELY want it to be misandry so you can lay claim to your own victimhood
>>5952955
>So you're willing to say that gender is ultimately made up and it's an individual's personal feelings that determine, what gender(s), if any, they feel most comfortable with? Cuz that'd be pretty good.
Not at all. see how youre just making up what you wanna hear that fits you best?
>You literally are though. You DESPERATELY want it to be misandry so you can lay claim to your own victimhood
nope. just the most logical conclusion with actual facts to back it up. sorry i dont think like a creationist like you.
>>5952968
>they dont count because i dont want them too, ill put words in your mouth and say you implied it was all women
how many goal posts are you gonna move and how much bullshit are you gonna make up? can you just go away or have a valid point already thats based in reality?
>>5952963
So which is it? Gender is a point of view, or is it something someone innately is?
>just the most logical conclusion with actual facts to back it up
>facts
literally where. Cute repetition of "logic" btw. Using that word a lot must make your argument more correct! I'm sorry, more "logical"
>>5952968
"no women are complaining"
"these ones are"
"B-BUT NOT ALL OF THEM"
get bent.
>>5952973
>logical fallacy buzzwords
>please leave my safe space!
Okay, snowflake, I gotta take a shower and go to bed. You mark that little chalkboard of internet arguments won ;D
>>5952968
Which means they're the only ones getting a message on lgbt rights out and passing laws to block them.
Same way Christians let biggots speak for them via apathy.
>>5952975
>radical TERFs' opinions mattering
There's your problem
>>5952974
I never said gender was a point of view jackass, its a point of view that a transwoman is a woman.
they are not the same thing, and never will be. the idea they are is a deluded point of view based on fairly recent new pseudo definitions of what gender is and how it is separate to sex.
>>5952986
>They're the only ones getting out the message!!!!
I've literally never heard anything they've said
>That means they're the only ones with the message!!!!
Do you see how I'm confused here?
>>5952987
they still count, theyre women. they are complaining. i am sorry it is this hard to accept facts. but give it up. they count.
>>5952980
So you gave up trying to pretend they dont count, barfed out your own buzzwards and turned tail and ran because you dont have shit? damn right you lost.
Why are feminists so adamant on defending feminism and not calling out bullshit when there is bullshit. When you don't call out transphobia in feminism, feminism remains transphobic.
>>5952792
I agree. A lot of transphobia is rooted in sexism. Particurlary transphobia centered against trans women. Of course, people won't admit it because it says a lot about how fucked society really is when it comes to gender. That, and the fact trans people are still among the current scapegoats for society's quarrels with sexism and homophobia.
I've dealt with TERFs and heard their arguments. The gist of it is that trans women are biologically male and were socialized as males. Even though socialization is different for every AMAB person and trans women do not necessarily benefit or learn from it in the ways straight cis men do, that doesn't stop them from judging them no differently than they do straight cis men. It's misandry. TERFs pervieve any male bodied person as an inherent threat to a woman's safety. Every argument typically hinges on the possibility of physical violence, sexual misconduct and how male socialization makes anyone with a Y chromosome a latent rapist.
>>5952792
I thought this was obvious? Pretty much all the complaints about transwomen in female bathrooms revolves around fears of sexual assault/rape/etc. Those evil men are gonna rape your little girl! It's all bullshit fearmongering.
Do you really think TERFs have that much political power? isn't it more likely that, A) conservative people are afraid trans mtf in the bathrooms are secretly predators and that B) coincidentally this is also what Terfs think? so they will probably go along and support the ban? And not a case of Terfs masterminding the whole thing.
>>5952792
I disagree, but if this argument can convince even one person potentially voting on these bills, then I don't really care.
>>5952803
>It's not a fear of men, because transwomen are women, not men.
>That's why literally no one is talking about transmen.
Have you done ANY reading on this? Radical Left and Right all agree on this matter. They believe transwomen are delusional perverted men. End of. They don't talk about transmen because it doesn't fit the perverted man narrative.
>>5952792
It's not misandry. If it was, they'd be trying to take rights away from cis men. Which they're not, cis men are still 100% allowed to use the bathroom of their gender identity.
Yes, I can kind of agree that having sex segregated bathrooms in the first place is silly and backwards, however the anti-trans bathroom laws don't actually hurt cis men in any way whatsoever.
It is only those who are BOTH AMAB and trans who suffer.
>>5952806
Care to actually show some statistics on how many men vs women are in favor of these laws?
>>5952827
If you're just going to dismiss other perspectives as "tumblr", you're in no position to call yourself logical. Assuming you're OP, I don't even think you care about trans people, you're just using them as an excuse to hate on feminism and claim that men experience systematic oppression.
>>5952839
Nah, they refuse to learn. Ignorance is only an excuse up to a point, if you're given evidence and dismiss it as a conspiracy you're just being hostile.
>>5952858
>like "rape culture is complicated", no it doesnt exist, its only complicated because people
Arguing that rape culture doesn't exist requires one to literally believe that "rape culture" is guys literally telling each other "it's okay to violently force sex on people without their consent." That's not what rape culture is. It's more about misunderstanding what consent actually is, the idea that if a woman starts saying no in the middle of sex it really means she's enjoying it, etc.
>same for the idea that the western world is a patriarchy.
Western society (and virtually every other society) is a patriarchy though. It's very much male-centered, which is literally all that patriarchy means. Children inherit the names of their fathers, "men act, women are", politicians, scientists and so on are frequently assumed to be male unless stated otherwise - these are all examples of what patriarchy means. Patriarchy is just a society in which "male is default", it doesn't mean women have no rights.
>>5952862
>it being an irrational fear of men is plain and simple.
No, if that was the case men would be discriminated against and hated just as much as mtfs are.
>meanwhile, theres plenty of feminists openly saying exacty what i described. that they dont want transwomen in bathrooms because they believe they are men, and believe all men potential rapists.
That's pretty much the traditional view of society as a whole (read: predominantly men). That's the reasoning men use to deny trans women the right to use the bathroom: they always talk about protecting women, "think of the children", and "are you seriously saying my 6 year old daughter has to let grown men wave their dicks in her face?".
>>5952792
O LOOK ANOTHER /POL/ SHILL THREAD JUST WHAT I ALWAYS WANTED
>>5952894
Yes, they're still feminists, but there's plenty of forms of non-TERF feminism, so using TERFs to characterize all feminists is silly. It's like using Hitler and Stalin as evidence that white men are evil, and then accusing your opponent of making a no true scotsman fallacy when they point out that their actions are not representative of white men.
>>5952900
Trans women are a subset of women. And they're hated for many of the same reasons that cis women are.
>>5952948
I know this might be a bit too intellectually complex for you to understand, but the point that's being made here is that the TERFs are a small but loud minority of women.
>>5952997
Why are you acting like they're the ONLY women whose opinion matters? You're acting like everyone who identifies as a feminist agrees with them, which simply isn't the case.
>>5955512
I don't think you know what "radical left" means. TERFs are a subset of radical feminists. And they're really not leftist at all.
>>5955784
>Trans women are a subset of women. And they're hated for many of the same reasons that cis women are.
Such as? Legitimately curious here.
>>5955737
> It's more about misunderstanding what consent actually is
You fucking imbecile, this is exactly what the anon you're arguing with said about you. You're playing semantics and talking with an higher-than-thou attitude instead of trying to make sense of your own fucking belief. Now you're actually trying to twist the fucking meaning of a concept as simple as consent, which definition is clear as black and white in the fucking dictionary and has been for decades.
Hell, here the description taken straight from a dictionary:
To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree
Pretty clear to me, ain't it for you? Consent is agreeing to something. Regardless of the context. If you do not agree, then it isn't consent, the end.
Personally, I'd say if you had the capability to give consent and you went to the point of actually having a consensual intercourse with someone else, well you don't get a "change of heart" (or to make off in the midst of action aka being a coward) and have the fucking decency to walk the walk as much as you talked the talk beforehand. You gotta assume some responsibility once in a while.
>Western society are patriarchy
That not true at all, hell the bulk of your own argument revolve around your own reinterpretation of entirely unrelated matters. Britain has been a matriarchy for the last couples of hundred years. Family name inheritance i defined by the parents, so they may choose to name their kids whatever they fucking want, this isn't misogyny to do so of what I am aware of. "men act, women are" is a bullshit rhetoric that is more of a sign of awful writing rather than a proof of misogyny. What you said about assumption are, ironically, baseless assumption of their own since you can't have actual proof of such things, that is unless you can read peoples mind and find out exactly what they think ( I mean, how can you even find out that peoples "frequently" assume such things about others? Is it even provable?)
No it's because you have a mental illness and people generally don't like you.
>>5952803
>That's why literally no one is talking about transmen.
Because transmen isn't considered infiltrators by the radical feminists.
>>5952792
That's a huge load of text, its a shame i'll never read it.
>>5955744
I wish these polfugees would stop coming and culturally enriching our board t b h
>>5952792
men are seen as a threat and women are seen as weak an non threatening
everyone sees transwomen as men and transmen as women and separates the bathrooms accordingly
>>5955876
Basically, a lot of it has to do with the idea that women are weak and inferior. Those things are used to denigrate cis women, say their opinions are of less value, etc. But from that perspective, it's even worse to be a trans woman, because you're "choosing" to become inferior, and you aren't able to reproduce which is the one redeeming quality of women.
>>5956299
>Now you're actually trying to twist the fucking meaning of a concept as simple as consent, which definition is clear as black and white in the fucking dictionary and has been for decades.
It's easy enough to DEFINE consent, the issue is putting it into practice. Like I said, people think their partner saying no in the middle of sex is just them getting really into it. Or people who get too excited and ASSUME consent was given when it actually wasn't.
>>5956299
>Britain has been a matriarchy for the last couples of hundred years.
The dictionary defines matriarchy as a system of government ruled by women. And saying "well yeah, most of the leaders are men but the women can manipulate them by denying them sex" doesn't count.
> Family name inheritance i defined by the parents, so they may choose to name their kids whatever they fucking want, this isn't misogyny to do so of what I am aware of.
The LAW may not forbid inheriting your mother's name, but patriarchy isn't just about the law, it's a sociological concept. How many people do you know who inherit their mother's family name?
>"men act, women are" is a bullshit rhetoric that is more of a sign of awful writing rather than a proof of misogyny.
You don't think the idea is prevalent? It's basically the entire system of how people seek romantic relationships! Men have to work hard and do stuff, all women have to do to be attractive is look good.
>>5956661
Is liking young lean just a tranny thing?
Yawwwn... you are all just rehashing that same arguments, over and over again. its rather inane
I came to 4chan in the hopes I wouldn't have to put up with this bullshit anymore, but it seems the Tumblr virus is so strong within the legbutt community it even manages to fester in an unPC haven like this.
>>5952879
>you'll never believe a woman over a man so why bother arguing
[citation FUCKING NEEDED]
>>5955737
>Western society (and virtually every other society) is a patriarchy though. It's very much male-centered, which is literally all that patriarchy means.
No, no it isn't. Your personal feefees and what your Women's Studies professor says doesn't trump the dictionary.
>>5959423
>That IS the dictionary definition though. It's ridiculous to say "muh dictionary" without even reading it and then acting like you know better than people who've studied this stuff for years.
Last I checked, the dictionary definition meant "enforced male leadership", the rest of the baggage you're attaching like "men act, women are" (as if character isn't also a leadership trait) is stuff your women's studies class tacked on.
>Who exactly said that most men are misogynists?
|
V
>>5956971
>Basically, a lot of it has to do with the idea that women are weak and inferior.
Sounds like the dictionary definition of misogyny to me. Maybe you need to study it a bit more.
>>5959580
And by "enforced" I mean women leadership being outright against the law, not "subliminally discouraged by some bad men spreading bad feelsies."
>>5952792
>they dont give a fuck what you identify as,
that is true
>they see transwomen as biological men, and feminism has helped teach up men are unruly savage rapists who cannot be controlled.
a lot of ugly, angry (and untouched!) feminists like to explain men that way, yes
>Youre getting caught up in the hatred and fear feminism has spread and made an acceptable norm for people.
I don't think it's that.
The reason has more to do with the matter that if there is a law that says if restrooms must be mixed-use, then building owners are going to end up liable for anything that happens in mixed-use restrooms.
>bring on egalitarianism.
there is no such thing, sweet cheeks
>>5959580
>Last I checked, the dictionary definition meant "enforced male leadership", the rest of the baggage you're attaching like "men act, women are" (as if character isn't also a leadership trait) is stuff your women's studies class tacked on.
Male leadership IS enforced in most societies, just because its legal for women to run for president doesn't mean it's not a patriarchy. Social norms play a role in enforcement too - it's actually pretty much the whole point of social norms in the first place.
>|
>V
>Sounds like the dictionary definition of misogyny to me. Maybe you need to study it a bit more.
??? I'm saying trans women ARE hated because of misogyny.
>>5959589
Then you're not actually following the definition, if you're ignoring everything that isn't immediately visible.
>>5960531
>I'm saying trans women ARE hated because of misogyny.
And you're essentially accusing society as whole of being misogynist when you imply that this is deeply ingrained enough to be the primary reason for it. It's really not all that different than accusing TERFs of being rampant in feminism and having control over them.
Unless it's just *a* reason among many that is actually practiced by a loud minority of people, rather than *the* reason practiced by the majority. Are you willing to concede to that?
>Male leadership IS enforced in most societies, just because its legal for women to run for president doesn't mean it's not a patriarchy. Social norms play a role in enforcement too - it's actually pretty much the whole point of social norms in the first place.
Sorry, but I'm afraid the anon you were arguing with doesn't use the liberal arts definition of "enforced".
>>5960531
>Then you're not actually following the definition, if you're ignoring everything that isn't immediately visible.
Because your definition is a slippery slope, the kind that can deem any kind of words considered unkind by your personal standard as a prosecutable abuse. We keep legal matters distinct for a reason.
>>5960905
>And you're essentially accusing society as whole of being misogynist when you imply that this is deeply ingrained enough to be the primary reason for it. It's really not all that different than accusing TERFs of being rampant in feminism and having control over them.
Why would saying society as a whole is misogynist be any more extreme than saying society as a whole is transphobic? The latter is presumably something you agree with.
>Because your definition is a slippery slope, the kind that can deem any kind of words considered unkind by your personal standard as a prosecutable abuse. We keep legal matters distinct for a reason.
I'm not saying mere INSULTS qualify as "enforcement" of male leadership, I'm just saying that it's possible for enforcement of male leadership to exist even if there are no formal legal barriers against women. For example, just because it's legal for women to seek legal positions, doesn't mean they're going to automatically get them in proportion to their abilities and efforts. Even without laws against it, it's conceivable that negative stereotypes of women will put them at a disadvantage.
>>5961379
*legal for women to seek LEADERSHIP positions
>>5961379
>Why would saying society as a whole is misogynist be any more extreme than saying society as a whole is transphobic? The latter is presumably something you agree with.
Don't know where you got that from. I didn't say feminists were primarily TERFs. It's pointless to make a generalization like that which is why you complaining about it yet generalizing the whole of society as misogynists is rather ironic.
>I'm not saying mere INSULTS qualify as "enforcement" of male leadership, I'm just saying that it's possible
Stopped right there. It's *possible*, yes. As in we're talking something on an individual basis rather than officially mandated. You're getting into subjective territory when you introduce your feminist logic here hence the slippery slope.
>>5961379
And stop bumping this shitty thread.
>>5952803
yes
>>5961432
>I didn't say feminists were primarily TERFs
I never said you did.
>generalizing the whole of society as misogynists
I didn't do that though. I just said that transphobia is rooted in misogyny. The only thing that can be derived from that is that those who are transphobic are also misogynistic. You're the one that generalizes the whole of society as being transphobic - and from that you reason that I'm generalizing them as misogynists. Now, if society as a whole is transphobic, then my theory DOES imply that society as a whole is misogynistic...but I never said that society as a whole is transphobic - I was merely addressing the CAUSES of transphobia, not its PREVALENCE.
>individual basis rather than official mandated
That's a false dichotomy, and one that completely ignores the notion of social norms, which are NEITHER an individual matter nor mandated by government. It assumes that every individual exists in a vacuum without any kind of social pressures acting on them.
>>5961737
>transphobia is rooted in misogyny
Only according to feminist logic. It's more likely transpeople are considered disfigured humans and gross people out. And grossness is more jarring when it affects something pretty (female) than not as pretty (male).
>>5961771
>And grossness is more jarring when it affects something pretty (female) than not as pretty (male).
If that was true, wouldn't transphobic people (who see trans people as their birth sex) be more bothered by ftms than mtfs? It seems to be more the other way around; mtfs are more degenerate and disgusting because they're seen as moving downwards (since females are considered inferior, AKA misogyny) whereas they see ftms as pursuing an admirable if misguided goal.
>>5961816
I wish rad-fems could see that it's not at all about moving downwards. By and large transwomen transition to cast off their masculinity, believing it's the only way we could live comfortably in our own body, not a devious desire for wanting to be a woman.
I imagine it's much the same way for transmen, though ironically enough I wonder if more men would be helpful to a transman than women would be to a transwoman. If we look off, we become something to immediately avoid, and no-one offers sympathy or guidance unless you can prove to them you deserve to be in the girl club.
I'm trying really hard ok ; ;
>>5961880
I am well aware its not about moving upwards/downwards, gender dysphoria has nothing to do with one gender being objectively better than the other. But transphobic people tend to see it that way, and its disgraceful for a man to want to be like a woman, but not so bad for a woman to want to be more like men.
>>5961816
>I know how people think because my women's studies teach said so and everything is misogynist by default!
Do you really honestly think people as an aggregate have that thought when they think about transpeople? You're putting ideas in the heads of a LOT of people based on a premise that's actually a lot flimsier than you've been led to believe.
You want a more rational explanation why people have stronger reactions to MtFs than FtMs? BECAUSE THERE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE OF THE FORMER THAN THE LATTER, at least according to popular belief. And it is verifiable common sense that people's antipathy toward a perceived threat is directly proportional to its predominance.
But that hardly matters to a feminist, nooooo. Because every remotely murky issue has to default to "becuz women oppressed!" under the feminist belief system. You BELIEVE de facto in an obligatory truism that's really more dogma than fact and rely on it out of a self-fulfilling essentialism. This is why people compare you to religious folk.
>>5962106
>You want a more rational explanation why people have stronger reactions to MtFs than FtMs? BECAUSE THERE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE OF THE FORMER THAN THE LATTER, at least according to popular belief
If anything, that too would imply that people would have a stronger reaction to FtMs. Why would people react LESS strongly to something that's unusual?
>And it is verifiable common sense that people's antipathy toward a perceived threat is directly proportional to its predominance.
If it's so verifiable, surely you're able to cite some evidence supporting this effect? And in any case, it doesn't seem to be true - people are more afraid of plane crashes than car accidents, despite the former being much less common.
>>5961880
>I imagine it's much the same way for transmen, though ironically enough I wonder if more men would be helpful to a transman than women would be to a transwoman. If we look off, we become something to immediately avoid, and no-one offers sympathy or guidance unless you can prove to them you deserve to be in the girl club.
Pretty sure FtMs are considered more "gross" than MtFs since it's seen as mutating and uglifying something pretty than prettying up something ugly. Of course, a half-assed job of prettifying something and leaving ugliness in plain view tends to disturb people a fair bit, which is why hons get so much shit compared to passing transpeople of either variety.
As for the "girl's club" thing, it's as I've said in this post >>5961006 Femininity is considered something sacred in society which men are deemed "unworthy" of attempting, and that the ugliness of masculinity cheapens and demeans it.
"But then why the big fuss over MtFs? Surely it must be soggy knees!" read my post >>5962106 for just one of many actually rational explanations.
>>5962137
>If it's so verifiable, surely you're able to cite some evidence supporting this effect?
You mean like all the oh-so certifiable feminist claims you've made this whole thread, like
>>5952879
>you'll never believe a woman over a man so why bother arguing
Still waiting on that one.
I know how the feminist faith works. You don't really care about evidence and just want to hold the opposition to your own convenient double standards. Maybe instead try being intelligent for once?
>And in any case, it doesn't seem to be true - people are more afraid of plane crashes than car accidents, despite the former being much less common.
Look ma, I found a false equivalence!
Oh BTW, you're doing the whole generalizing/assuming thing again. You might be surprised to discover quite a few people are more afraid of car accidents than plane crashes.
>>5962197
>You mean like all the oh-so certifiable feminist claims you've made this whole thread, like
>>5952879
>you'll never believe a woman over a man so why bother arguing
For one, I didn't say that, and regardless of whether I did or not, if you want to prove that the feminists are the illogical ones, you should cite some evidence and prove you can do better then them. Dropping to their level doesn't prove anything, and just makes the whole discussion a waste of their time
>Oh BTW, you're doing the whole generalizing/assuming thing again. You might be surprised to discover quite a few people are more afraid of car accidents than plane crashes.
Yes, it is generalizing and assuming, and I do admit I don't have any specific statistics - but I've encountered people who are unwilling to fly due to fears of hijacking/plane crashes etc. I've never even heard of someone afraid of getting in a car for similar reasons. And in any case, I wasn't really trying to actually say "I'm right and you're wrong" - but rather than "common sense" could suggest the opposite of what you claim, which is why you should provide a source.
>>5962137
>If anything, that too would imply that people would have a stronger reaction to FtMs. Why would people react LESS strongly to something that's unusual?
Think of it as a bell curve. Things that are commonplace are more accepted than the unusual, however there is a point the unusual has to reach where it become acceptable. That medium area where the unusual is more common but not yet accepted is where it's more feared.
Think of homosexuality being at the top, FtMs at the bottom and MtFs in the middle. Of course this leaves a gay/lesbian split that you could consider complicating the matter, but that goes both ways. By what appears to be your feminist logic of "women hated more than men" lesbians being more accepted than gays doesn't make much sense unless you confound it with gender theory gobbledygook.
>>5962237
I seriously hope you're not the Occam's Razor guy from a few posts back.
>>5962237
>By what appears to be your feminist logic of "women hated more than men" lesbians being more accepted than gays doesn't make much sense unless you confound it with gender theory gobbledygook.
It's not "gobbledygook", if anything it's more straightforward than your bell curve/uncanny valley theory. The idea isn't so much that WOMEN are hated, it's FEMININITY that's hated. It's somewhat acceptable for a woman to be feminine, based on the idea that that's their natural role - but it still makes them inferior, so a woman seeking to become masculine is a good thing. Whereas a man becoming feminine is a bad thing, since they're seen as being born with all the potential to be strong and dominant, but choosing to throw that all away and be inferior. It's really not that complicated at all.
>>5962229
>Yes, it is generalizing and assuming, and I do admit I don't have any specific statistics - but I've encountered people who are unwilling to fly due to fears of hijacking/plane crashes etc. I've never even heard of someone afraid of getting in a car for similar reasons.
So basically anecdotal evidence. The kind of logic that leads to "Men are scum because I was in two failed relationships." But at least you admit it here, so I'm not going to argue it any further.
>And in any case, I wasn't really trying to actually say "I'm right and you're wrong" - but rather than "common sense" could suggest the opposite of what you claim, which is why you should provide a source.
I really don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I'm not the one proclaiming some unifying truth based a thinking pattern of perpetual victimhood. I don't make such hard determinations about how something as complex as society works as a whole. I just have ideas and acknowledge them as such. You're the one sipping the kool-aid of social justice belief systems.
passing is such an outdated concept desu
>>5962255
Then explain to me why boys get chastised for "macho" behavior and told to "be more sensitive"? Why do the polite and clean-cut men run our higher learning facilities while rugged and virile men permeate our prison cells.
See, you can't explain away the complexities of society like this by feminist logic unless you try really, really hard. And the only reason you would resort to doing so with such exclusivity would be the dogmatism of the feminist belief structure forcing such a convoluted tunnel vision on you.
>>5962269
>So basically anecdotal evidence. The kind of logic that leads to "Men are scum because I was in two failed relationships." But at least you admit it here, so I'm not going to argue it any further.
Yes, it is anecdotal, like your claims. Until you actually provide a source, your claims are no legitimate that mine.
>I really don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I'm not the one proclaiming some unifying truth based a thinking pattern of perpetual victimhood. I don't make such hard determinations about how something as complex as society works as a whole. I just have ideas and acknowledge them as such. You're the one sipping the kool-aid of social justice belief systems.
But you ARE saying I'm wrong. Yet you refuse to provide evidence to support that claim. Either you are trolling, or your belief system is based on literally nothing factual and you're ashamed to admit it.
>>5962291
>Then explain to me why boys get chastised for "macho" behavior and told to "be more sensitive"?
That's a feminist push against the pre-existing social norms that shame men for being "effeminate" or "sensitive".
>>5952803
>>5952792
Both groups you are describing are literally reactionaries. OP seems to be shilling for the idea that this is (solely) the fault of the reactionary left, while the responder is describing out the viewpoint of the reactionary right.
Both of you are missing the point that this pattern of behavior and viewpoint coming from the people trying to pass these bills is fundamentally reactionary. Their political or ideological affiliation no longer matters, because they have abandoned much more fundamental assumptions of civil rights and consensus. They have decided that their world view is more important than anything else.
As of now, they are remaining within the (barely) legal methods for them to enforce their will, but if these are overruled they will not cease to do whatever they can to enforce their views. They will continuously attempt to intervene in lower and lower levels of government, counting on the ability to mask their actions and be ignored in order to regain control. They will use intimidation and discrimination if they think they can get away with it. If they are fully countered and forced to accept social change on a legal level, they will resort to withdrawing their resources from society and attempting to separate themselves from the government or the outside world as much as possible.
To reactionaries, political parties or ideologies are irrelevant. They will unite across party lines in order to stop things from changing, because in their minds a static universe with a clearly defined position for themselves is the most important component of their identity. Feminists and Catholics, Democrats and Republicans, will join together in one giant alliance of convince to oppose this change.
You are still fighting under the assumptions of civil society and dialectic politics, which is foolish when dealing with these people.
>>5962326
>Feminist accusing the non-feminist of having a belief system.
Holy shit.
You really are going for the "prove a negative" angle. Thank you for cementing the feminism/religion parallel all the more. God damn you are on a roll, son.
Oh sorry, forgot that phrase is patriarchal.
>That's a feminist push against the pre-existing social norms that shame men for being "effeminate" or "sensitive".
LOL. Of course you'd try to claim whatever good in the world you can as feminism. Never mind that I'm pretty sure what I just mentioned has existed outside the time frame of the feminist movement.
"B-b-but the proof!" How about you fuck off and get some education outside of the femisphere instead.
>>5962464
>arguing witbh a feminist
>>5953034
Because they don't care about transphobia, they care about feminism.
Not every group fights for the rights of every group.
>>5952792
It's both misandry and misogyny.
Due to the implied presence of a penis in a womens' bathroom, people lose their shit. It doesn't matter if it's attached to some massive, 6'2" bodybuilding trans lesbian, or some 5'nothing waifish piece of tissue paper. The mere thought that it's potentially there is enough to trigger the shit out of all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds.
With the relatively recent public revelation that there have been trans people living among us for a very, very long time, ignorant women started pearl-clutching about their safety... as if the statistically non-existent threat of being raped in a bathroom by a trans woman suddenly became the most pressing matter on the planet. This is due primarily to the inherent distrust of assigned males of all ages, and the expectation that they're all violent, mindless, sex-crazed animals who can't control themselves.
Then ignorant men start waxing paternalistic about the protection of women and little girls (often conflated in these arguments, very telling), from "men" again because they were taught that all assigned males... even ones that are more physically female than male due to hormones and neurology... are intrinsically violent, rapist animals. This is also why trans women are ridiculed for being feminine, because it's seen as shameful and humorous to society for a "man" to express themseves in a feminine fashion. However, trans women are subject to the same type of social condescension and sexual objectification normally reserved for women who aren't trans.
Through the fear and mistrust of other women, plus the paternalistic "we must protect our women and girls" attitude from men, trans women are often subject to unhindered sexist ridicule (both misogyny and misandry for both aspects of how they're percieved by others), violence, and sexual assault.
Trans men are ignored because "upgrade lol" and people find the vagina (and "women") non-threatening.
>>5954967
TERFs don't need political power.
All they seem to do recently is flutter into chatrooms, message boards, news articles and online communities that are discussing trans people for whatever reason (comment sections, disqus, youtube, reddit, blogs, etc.) and post their copypasta ontological arguments about why trans people are sex-crazed maniacs that are terrible, not to be trusted, and want to eat your children. For more right-wing types of communities, they post their fallacies sans blatant femininist discourse. The clueless, typically younger male edgelords, armed with the infatuating perceived certainty that they know more about someone else than that person knows about themselves, do the rest and attack trans people and anything even tangentially trans-related with factory-produced memes and loaded arguments en masse ("TRIGGERED KEKEKEKEKE"), thus spreading second-wave TERF discourse on the backs of the recent wave of angry reactionaries like a botnet of useful idiots.
I'll never stop laughing when full-on redpill, Deus Vult MGTOW types start rattling off TERF talking points to the letter as if they thought of it on their own, even to the point where they deny the differences between male and female neurology that directly benefits their anti-feminist ideology.
It's how TERFs fucked up trans rights and trans healthcare to begin with back in the 70s and 80s, and it's how they continue to fuck with trans people today. They take unfocused right-wing fear and intolerance surrounding LGBT, and aim it at trans people to serve their short-term political purposes.
>>5962326
>That's a feminist push against the pre-existing social norms that shame men for being "effeminate" or "sensitive".
You can promote acceptance of feminine and sensitive boys without shitting on traditionally masculine boys, you know. It solves nothing when you glorify one, but constantly shame and ridicule the other. It simply makes the masculine boys jealous of all of that undue attention and praise and pick on the feminine boys more out of spite. It also prevents boys from learning healthy ways to express their masculinity in concert with those that are intrinsically feminine, as opposed to in spite of them. When you put someone on a pedestal and treat them as if they're perfect, even to protect them from unfair ridicule and violence, people have this unbearable urge to knock them down a peg through any means at their disposal. This childish mentality applies to both pre-schoolers and full grown adults.
>be a cis female
>been sexually assaulted twice in female-only spaces by transmen
I will tell every single person my stories and I will let women know they are not safe. I will not risk another womans safety in order for you to feel included.
>>5956462
nah there considered traitors its dumb af
>>5962906
>be cis female
>been sexually assaulted thrice in female-only spaces by cis women
I will tell every single person my stories and I will let women know they are not safe from women. I will not risk another womans safety in order for women to feel included with women.
>>5952853
>1 in 6 women are assaulted on a college campus
lol as if
>>5952853
>because as it stands 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted while at college.
>1 in 4
>N-No actually it's 1 in 5, really!
>Okay, but seriously, it's DEFINITELY 1 in 6, believe me, we totally got it right this time.
>>5962464
>>Feminist accusing the non-feminist of having a belief system.
So you consider it preferable to not believe in anything at all and just decide everything by coin flip? "Belief system" is just your worldview, doesn't mean it's based on religious faith - but the way you throw a temper tantrum when asked for sources suggests that your worldview is NOT based on anything factual.
>LOL. Of course you'd try to claim whatever good in the world you can as feminism.
Uh, no. There's plenty of good in the world that doesn't come from feminism - the industrial revolution, the defeat of Nazi Germany, the development of computers, modern medicine, etc. But pushing back against the social norms that shame effemininate boys is something that DOES have a clear connection to feminism.
>Never mind that I'm pretty sure what I just mentioned has existed outside the time frame of the feminist movement.
"Pretty sure"? As in you really don't know? The only time I've heard of this is complaining about feminists "feminizing our men", are there any reports on this sort of thing going on before feminism was a thing? What specifically would you define as the "time frame of the feminist movement".
>"B-b-but the proof!" How about you fuck off and get some education outside of the femisphere instead.
What would you consider "the femisphere"? Everything but MRA blogs? Because I get most of my information from ordinary sources, not feminist blogs or whatever you think I do.
>>5962526
"Toxic masculinity" isn't just traditional male gender roles. It's specifically the idea that men feel pressured to act traditionally masculine, even if that's not what they personally want. Ending gender role policing would end toxic masculinity (since it would no longer be acceptable to force men to act "traditionally masculine") but men would still be free to act as masculine or feminine as they want.
>>5962884
>>5962884
Yes, shaming masculinity is obviously not a solution. However, I'm skeptical of the people who claim that schools are actually shaming boys for being masculine, since at least some of them seem to claim discouraging boys from being rough with each other is an "attack of masculinity". And I don't really get that, schools aren't an environment where people being violent with each other should be accepted. Now, if they start shaming boys for having traditionally male interests, or whatever, that's different. But I disagree that rules requiring boys to act civilly is an attack of masculinity. So basically, if you believe that masculinity is being shamed, could you provide some specific examples (even anecdotal ones) of what specifically is occurring?
>>5964379
>But pushing back against the social norms that shame effemininate boys is something that DOES have a clear connection to feminism.
Mostly that it's something second wave feminism created.
Your theology vilified effeminate boys as monsters.
>>5964412
Really? You think people were perfectly okay with effeminate boys before 2nd wave feminism came along?
>>5964379
Skepticism is not a world view in the same way that atheism is not a religion. It should be pretty fucking obvious
>>5964379
>Uh, no. There's plenty of good in the world that doesn't come from feminism - the industrial revolution, the defeat of Nazi Germany, the development of computers, modern medicine, etc.
Hence the "you can" part of the sentence. :p Of course it makes sense to concede on the things where there's not the slightest logic loophole to thread feminism through.
>>5964379
>"Pretty sure"? As in you really don't know?
I'm getting so fucking tired of this. As if YOU really DO know all the feminist theories you spout? You came in here with the dogmatic belief standpoint. The burden of proof is on YOU. No one should have to prove God doesn't exist.
People have complained about "rowdy" children since the '50s. And you don't have to look far to find films and literature about women (even some men too) complaining about men being "arrogant" and "unkind" for starters. I assume you consume some amount of fictional media from more than a few years in scope.
And a feminist book in an ordinary book store is still a feminist source.
>>5964454
>not being completely masculine = effeminate
Nice black and white thinking there. But of course feminism does preclude that.
Feminists are just /pol/tards at the opposite end of the political spectrum.
>Women aren't in X profession because they're inferior!
>Women aren't in X profession because they're oppressed!
It's grade school logic that's anathema to shades of gray, objectivity and nuance.
>>5964695
>Skepticism is not a world view in the same way that atheism is not a religion. It should be pretty fucking obvious
So you're skeptical about EVERYTHING?
>Hence the "you can" part of the sentence. :p Of course it makes sense to concede on the things where there's not the slightest logic loophole to thread feminism through.
Yes but on the flip side you seem to think it's illogical to connect feminist attitudes to feminism.
>I'm getting so fucking tired of this. As if YOU really DO know all the feminist theories you spout? You came in here with the dogmatic belief standpoint. The burden of proof is on YOU. No one should have to prove God doesn't exist.
What specific "dogmatic belief" did I express? You're the one that claimed boys are being shamed for being masculine, and that that has been going on since before feminism was a thing...burden of proof is on YOU to back up that claim.
>People have complained about "rowdy" children since the '50s
So "rowdy" = masculine to you? Complaining about children being loud and disruptive is an attack on masculinity? It's not acceptable for girls to be rowdy either, so why are you acting like this is anti-male bias?
>>5964708
The very post I was replying to mentioned effeminate boys. I'm not sure what you think "not completely masculine" boys has to do with anything.
>>5964735
I get that you're probably oversimplifying a great deal, however you should realize that outright dismissing the notion of oppression is itself "anathema to shades of gray". If you want to have a nuanced view, you need to be open to the possibility that in some cases women are oppressed, without thinking that is the whole picture.
>>5964752
>Yes but on the flip side you seem to think it's illogical to connect feminist attitudes to feminism.
By that logic feminism has existed since the beginning of the human species.
>>>5964752
>What specific "dogmatic belief" did I express? You're the one that claimed boys are being shamed for being masculine, and that that has been going on since before feminism was a thing...burden of proof is on YOU to back up that claim.
Again, you made the claim that masculinity wasn't criticized until the feminist movement with no proof that this was the case. You are the one who introduced the argument in the first place that society was entirely pro-masculine and anti-feminine in the first place. You brought up God's (patriarchy's) existence and it's your job to prove it, not my job to disprove it.
>>5964752
>So "rowdy" = masculine to you? Complaining about children being loud and disruptive is an attack on masculinity? It's not acceptable for girls to be rowdy either, so why are you acting like this is anti-male bias?
Because masculinity and femininity are subjective terms.
>>5964758
>If you want to have a nuanced view, you need to be open to the possibility that in some cases women are inferior, without thinking that is the whole picture.
See what I can do there?
>>5964785
You're the one who first claimed boys are shamed for being masculine. Burden of proof is on YOU to show that that is really happening.
>>5964789
Yes, that is exactly correct. You have to be open to the possibility, evaluate it and see if there's a reason to dismiss it. That's why I said "I get that you're probably oversimplifying" --- what I meant by that is that you presumably had considered the possibility that women are oppressed, evaluated it and dismissed it. My point is that you SHOULD be open to an idea and evaluate it before choosing to dismiss it simply because you don't like it.
>>5964807
So are you open to the idea of women being inferior, then?
Feminism has taught me a lot about what it means to be a male, and really opened my eyes to my oppressor class identity and how much my continued male existence harms others.
All males should be educated with feminist values from childhood to tell them what masculinity actually means, and what the Proper Correct way to be masculine is.
This article is a must read. Really enlightening.
https://feministisktperspektiv.se/2014/12/16/den-manliga-skammens-feminism/
>>5964379
WRONG.
Toxic masculinity is violent videogames, muscles, bravado and machismo, having a sexual interest in the female form, "bro culture" and so on, regardless of if they're doing it willingly or not. I've done plenty of research on this, that is what most people refer to as toxic masculinity. And those things are what I'm now fighting against with all of my heart and my soul.
>>5964827
>>5964811
Yes, generally speaking, though I have evaluated and dismissed some SPECIFIC claims of inferiority (i.e. having lower physical strength on average doesn't make them inferior in areas not related to physical strength). "Inferiority" is a rather broad and vague term - it generally doesn't make sense to just say a demographic group is "inferior", it's important to clarify what specifically you mean by that.
>>5964827
>Toxic masculinity is violent videogames, muscles, bravado and machismo, having a sexual interest in the female form, "bro culture" and so on, regardless of if they're doing it willingly or not
I think you have a mild misunderstanding here - it's not "regardless of if they're doing it willingly or not", rather it's that one cannot really choose to do it willingly in the first place, if they've been indoctrinated into it and into being unaware of the consequences of their actions. Only after the elimination of toxic masculinity can men freely choose to embody traditionally masculine values. Something similar occurred with the liberation of women from traditional gender roles - it's why feminists are often perceived as being opposed to women being traditionally feminine. It's because when you're indoctrinated into gender roles, it's hard to realize that what you might really want is something different. You have to be free before you have the perspective to make that choice.
>>5964837
There is absolutely nothing "baiting" in what I said. It's just feminism. Here's an excerpt:
>Privileges are not just structural, abstract power mechanisms that exist outside of us as individuals. They are ours. They have branded our bodies, they are part of who we are.
>Ruling, oppression and resistance is not something that exists only in history books and the feminist manifestos, it is something that funneled down into each individual, something that brand every body.
>It is me and no one else that makes the lonely woman cross the street in the night. Why? Because my body is the oppressor's body - and it continues to oppress. Patriarchy is my guilt, and masculinity is my shame.
>I am a living, growing part of a small, small group of people who continue to exploit and oppress all other groups of people. For that, I am ashamed. I remain part of the problem as long as my body is the oppressor's body.
>The best way for me to help the oppressed is to become someone other than who I am. I am convinced that this is (the white, heterosexual) man's most important feminist awakening. The queer way is the only feminist path that we in good conscience can proceed on. The transformation of the white heterosexual male body carries on feminism and triumphs.
>I realize that I have to become someone else. Because I refuse to live with the guilt and shame. I fumble for action. I'm looking for strategies to transform the oppressor body. I paint my nails red, purple lips and eyes black. I wear a dress or colorful leggings with the big shirt. I ask my girlfriend to penetrate me. I try to make me feel comfortable in sexual situations with other men. I seek homoerotic friday. I train myself to one day be able to be with them. It is not about wanting to "become gay" or "becoming a woman". I do not wish that I were a woman. I retain stubble. I just want to be less heterosexual. I just want to stop being a man.
>Debt is my driving force and shame is my awakening.
>>5952792
>they dont give a fuck what you identify as, they see transwomen as biological men, and feminism has helped teach up men are unruly savage rapists who cannot be controlled.
...
Umm, buddy...
Men are the ones drafting and passing most of these laws. Also they're the ones derailing sex education and making abortion PRACTICALLY ILLEGAL in a lot of places. They see themselves as the guardians of their wives' and daughters' sexualities and bodies. It's very fucked up and creepy. Not a coincidence that there's a big overlap b/t Christian conservatives and child abusers.
But yeah, okay, misandry...
>>5964862
>(s)he fed the troll
>>5964862
>if they've been indoctrinated into it and into being unaware of the consequences of their actions.
And how do you tell the difference between one who was "indoctrinated"? Or do we just cast a big net and target all of them and beat it out of their system?
The only path now is to stamp down on what is deemed "improper incorrect masculine roles" as defined by whatever people like you think is improper, so masculinity can be reset and restarted in the image of what feminist academics want men to be. Basically, Gender Policing done with sneer tweets and articles by women who don't know what it's like to be a man in the first place, and men who condescendingly consider their self-flagellation identity as a male superior to all others.
>Only after the elimination of toxic masculinity
Toxic masculinity is whatever one wants it to mean, ie. whatever aspect of "masculinity" one doesn't like, which means ranting about banning toxic pop culture media, to giving toxic "rowdy" young boys adderall and ritalin for their entire development.
>It's because when you're indoctrinated into gender roles, it's hard to realize that what you might really want is something different.
And once we're finally in the open and clear, they would never be allowed or permitted to be the same kind of masculine as they were before even if you "enlightened" them. Because, I mean, come on, it's 2016. That's so passe. Like umm don't they have any shame to not want to act so toxically masculine anymore?
>>5964913
This. No women talk about fearing rape from MTF's at all. Especially not any feminists. It simply, doesn't happen.
>>5952792
>they dont give a fuck what you identify as, they see transwomen as biological men
ta-da
i never got "transfeminists" whose very argument of "transmisogyny" flies in the faces of TERFs.
so you're going to tell a TERF she has internalized misogyny when she bathes in XY tears?
>>5952803
you're confused. so transwomen are women but you don't want them in the women's bathroom?
>>5952820
you're right. TERFs are conservatively minded. that doesn't make them patriarchs. to call TERFs patriarchal is like... you're... what? so you want to blame men for TERFs too?
>>5964943
>Toxic masculinity is whatever one wants it to mean, ie. whatever aspect of "masculinity" one doesn't like, which means ranting about banning toxic pop culture media, to giving toxic "rowdy" young boys adderall and ritalin for their entire development.
No, its specifically means forcing ANY kind of masculinity on people.
>>5964957
I just randomly googled a popular article right now from esquire and it made the "Toxic Masculinity' term synonymous with "degraded masculinity' "hypermasculinity", men acting sexual and dumb and bad and wrong, and not just peer pressure concerning any kind of masculinity.
"Toxic Masculinity" as a basic phrase literally means "Masculinity that is BAD". You can go on about what it specifically means in some research journal, but that's how the word is widely used, understood, by most people who hear it and use it, because that's what the combination of words actually means when put together. They see something deemed "masculine" whether in a man's personality, gender expression, or media he consumes, that they don't like, so they call it "Toxic" kind of masculinity. And there sure is a hell of a lot of it these days. On western college campuses, in western media, BAD Masculinity is everywhere. BAD Masculinity must be fought against wherever our magnifying glasses can find them, whenever men misbehave or act out of line, and we need to call them out on being so toxic.
(Not from any of non-white islamic immigrants though, they are perfect. We need a million more of them.)
>>5965035
Yes, etymologically it means "masculinity that is bad". But the general connotation of the term as used by feminists is based around how gender norms hurt men.
>>5964943
>This. No women talk about fearing rape from MTF's at all.
No. I never implied that. In any group, you can find people who have the Wrong Opinions. I'm sure you could find insane "feminists" jumping to the defense of McCrory while he ups draconian restrictions on abortion. But this
>The reason people are trying so hard to pass a bill banning trans women from womens rooms isnt transphobia
Is a dangerous misreading of the political situation. Right wingers are expanding the Culture War on a number of fronts. The notion that they're Secret Misandrists is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in while.
>>5964925
I'm not trolling. It's a very enlightening article. If I ever have children I'll be sure to educate them in that manner to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow.
I have a younger cousin who's pretty much the perfect picture of a future privileged spoiled sociopathic brat - white, male, straight, blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. I fear for what kind of oppressive monster he's going to grow up into if he isn't properly educated in how not to be toxic. Thankfully I have material like that I can teach them with.
>>5965057
>Yes, etymologically it means "masculinity that is bad". But the general connotation of the term as used by feminists is based around how gender norms hurt men.
So would you, as a feminist, agree that certain expressions of masculinity are more toxic and bad than others and should be discouraged?
>>5965080
I would agree that certain behaviors are bad and should be discouraged, whether they should be classified as aspects of masculinity or not is another matter. However, "toxic masculinity" is really more about attitudes surrounding masculinity, rather than masculine behaviors themselves.
>Actuaaally, it's all about misandry
Hahaha what? If you're trans and you think men DON'T treat trannies like shit you must have started transition like 5 minutes ago. If you're not trans, sit the fuck down.
You think we are going to cosign this because what, we're male? Wait weren't you just talking about the bad feminists misgendering people? A lot of feminists think trans issues only matter in constellation to cis women's issues. Apparently MRA's are jumping on that train now too? Just, don't.
>BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TERFS?
Yes they're a big problem in certain queer/"progressive" spaces but we're also dealing with much wider hostility being drummed up by people who are pretty much antithetical to mainstream feminism. The same people leading the charge on repro rights, gay/lesbian rights, immigrant rights, are fully united in opposing this bullshit. The awful misandrist SJWs that fedoras love to bitch about are the only ones in our corner, so...
>>5965209
>ike ugh um just... like don't
>You think we are going to cosign this because what, we're male? Wait weren't you just talking about the bad feminists misgendering people?
OP's point was that they hate trans because they still see them as males, and males are evil and dangerous.
>>5965280
>OP's point was that they hate trans because they still see them as males, and males are evil and dangerous.
Yeah, I know. "Oh they're aggrieved, injured males just like me! They totally get it."
It's a ridiculous argument. GOP isn't very concerned with women's safety; they're cynically playing that angle because it's expedient to their goals, but don't be fooled. See: VAWA obstruction, cutting aid to impoverished single women with families, trying to turn SIDS into homicide charges (this after doing a bunch of damage to public health, which *measurably* upped infant mortality rates). They're doing so much awful shit to women it's hard to keep up.
But they argument is that they just hate trans because of all that feminazi propaganda they were reading? How do people come up with this? Have your feels but don't shoehorn in trans rights w them.
How about "Lots of different people dislike transwomen/men for lots of different reasons, often at opposite ends of the political spectrum and with malicious attitudes towards either gender"?
/thread
