Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy backwards maneuvers by feminism against transgenders.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Crazy backwards maneuvers by feminism against transgenders.

    Feminism still don't can't agree what is their position about transgenders, and in more broad terms homosexuals.

    As a brief intro of what is the bottom line of the problem... when a man decides to transition into a woman, he assume mannerisms and appearances that resemble the image of the traditional woman... feminism have a lot of problems with this image of a traditional woman, hence they do have problems with anyone, male or female, that want to look and live as one.

    So... feminism is calling of an unholy alliance with Men Rights Movement, to join together to attack the transgender and the homosexual community...

    Here first article, basically is a long... long breakdown of what is the problem and why, accordingly to feminism, the transgenders are a common enemy:

    Radical Feminist: Transgender Activism Is a 'Men's Rights Movement'
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/radical...ghts-movement/

    I am not goign to break this line by line... but will quote some lines that I though where interesting:

    Kara Dansky, a feminist lawyer and spokeswoman for Women's Liberation Front (WoLF), spoke against the so-called "Equality Act" at the Heritage Foundation on Monday, denouncing the transgender and gender identity movement as anti-women and anti-lesbian in particular.
    "This is a men's rights movement — this is really a men's rights movement," Dansky declared, calling for men to stand up for women and denounce the transgender movement.
    "I got kicked off of the Baltimore mayor's LGBTQ commission — as the only lesbian — simply for stating biological facts," Beck said. "I was found guilty of 'violence.' My crime? Using male pronouns to talk about a convicted male rapist who identifies as transgender and prefers female pronouns."
    This one is actually a bit insane... the guy identifies as a woman so they put him on a women prison where it is documented that he have rape at least 2 women inmate.

    The exiled lesbian argued that gender identity is a regressive social movement. "Sexualities are based on sex, but gender identities are based on stereotypes," she said. "Girls who play with trucks and like the color blue, boys who play with dolls and like the color pink, children with autism ... children who would likely grow up to be happy gay adults are now being sterilized for defying sex stereotypes."
    Common complain... we used to had masculine lesbians, or as they used to call them butches... but today you don't find that anymore, now they are labeled and oriented as transitioned into men. Same with effeminate gays.

    Lesbians, in particular, have spoken out about transgenderism, because many less effeminate women are considered likely to be trans, rather than accepted as lesbian women. This makes transgenderism a form of "conversion therapy."
    "If sex is construed to be gender identity, what that means is that nearly all sex-segregated spaces — colleges, sports, dormitories, and women's rights in general — will utterly disappear. They will completely disappear," Dansky declared. "It means effectively that women and girls will no longer exist as a coherent category worthy of civil rights protection, and that is an absolute disaster."
    They equally fight to destroy any male spaces as they fight to preserve women exclusive spaces.

    Jennifer Chavez, a member of WoLF's board of directors, read the stories of exasperated mothers whose children identified as transgender. When the mothers sought expert counsel, psychologists repeated the transgender narrative, rather than delving into deeper issues. In many cases, counseling to affirm a person's biological sex is outlawed. Some parents have even lost custody of their children for disagreeing with transgender identity.
    "People are not attracted to genders, yet every lesbian I know has been pressured to accept males into our dating pools and dwindling spaces. In order to validate their gender identity, men who call themselves trans women try to break the 'cotton ceiling,' which refers to lesbians' underwear," she noted, bitterly. This added further weight to the claim that transgender activism is a "men's rights movement."
    "The completely illogical statement that 'trans women are women' is recited like a Big Brother mantra in every Leftist space," Beck declared. "No one really believes it, but saying so will jeopardize your career, your community, and your life."
    Beck, Dansky, and Chavez only spoke at the conservative Heritage Foundation because no liberal organization would welcome them, despite the fact that they are liberals — radical feminists!
    I give it 3 months before the Southern Poverty Law Center declares them a hate group... LOL

    These radical feminists received a standing ovation at the conservative Heritage Foundation on Monday.
    This event showed that liberals and conservatives can indeed agree on specific issues when opposing the Left's stultifying and oppressive attempts to silence dissent.
    And at the end it gives me a reccomened link for another one of their articles, but I think I already got the idea:

    Feminists Clash with Transgenders at London Pride Parade
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/lesbian...-pride-parade/

    Anyway... moving to the second article where feminism is inviting Men Rights Movement to join forces against the transgenders... this one is more direct on it... the title is straight up a call to action:

    Radical Feminist Demands Chivalry! Wants Men to Help Fight “Transgenderism”
    https://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...transgenderism

    She dismisses the idea of “transitioning.” But that hasn’t stopped radical feminist Kara Dansky from transitioning into a traditionalist, for a moment, and demanding that men “stand up for women and denounce the transgender movement,” as PJ Media puts it. Call it situational chivalry.
    Presumably, this would enshrine in federal law a standard dictating that a man claiming womanhood must be allowed access to the women’s arena (e.g., bathrooms, locker areas, sporting events). Thus the claim that “‘transgenderism’ erases women”: If anyone can be a woman, the classification “woman” is diluted.
    LOL

    Now they want their bathrooms back??? Did they honestly though that I was goign to care what they do with their bathroom? they really believed that patriarchy forced women to have their bathroom???

    I have not problem sharing public bathroom with females that identify as men... I don't feel it wants to erase me... or at least not as much as feminism wants to erase me...

    So... now they want a bit of toxic masculinity... LOL

    Yet in this internecine battle of sexual-devolutionary special-interest groups — feminists vs. trans-activists — apparent is merely an effort to combat today’s politically correct standards with yesterday’s politically correct standards.
    In reality, transgender ideology seeks to erase women and men: The whole idea is that people have “gender” (a psychological designation), that gender should take precedence over “sex” (a biological designation), and that it’s fluid. The ultimate reality, the theory goes, isn’t that you’re a “man” or “woman” but that you reside somewhere on a spectrum.
    (Also note that there are plenty of women claiming manhood and access to men’s private spaces.)
    I don't feel threatened by them...

    Yet since condemning this agenda brings condemnation itself, many seek to frame their opposition fashionably. Oppose transgender “rights,” and you’re a bigot. But oppose the “rights” of a group not in political favor — in this case men — and, it’s hoped, you’ll make headway.
    Good job feminism... you have archive so much... but there is yet a long way to go... LOL

    Yet this tactic is more than just a ruse. As PJ Media also reports, “‘Overwhelmingly women have been resisting this,’ Hacsi Horvath, a man who once identified as a woman and underwent surgery, said a few seconds before Dansky’s remark [on men standing up]. ‘And it’s really shocking how many men on the internet are defending the whole trans thing. Straight men are all about the trans, and you have to wonder what the heck is going on.’”
    We don't care... if a guy want to call his butt hole a flower jar and stick flowers in it... that is his problem no mine... If a male want to wear a pretty a dress and some make up, that is his business... Why should I care? why should I be mad at it?...

    We are all just trying to find a bit of happiness in this world, if they are happy that way, good for them.

    One could quip that, with identity now considered reality, these men supporting “the trans” may not really be men.
    Fuck you feminism!

    You have assaulted my masculinity in every possible way, from every possible angle... so now for you to tell me that you want me to "man up" and start to patrol the ladies bathroom to make sure no trans use it... seriusly??? WTF???

    You destroyed every opportunity of being a part of society as a man, that is why we either have to find our own ways of masculinity, or our own underground forms of society... or both...

    #NoYourMan

    In fact, today women are enabling transgenderism far more than men are — by being substantially more likely to vote for the leftists, such as Pelosi and Cicilline, who push the agenda.
    ...you do not get what you want.

    You get what you vote for.

    Voting for leftists is a package deal — which today includes trans plans, like it or not.
    So... now feminists are going to vote Trump 2020... LOL

    The mother is correct. As I’ve explained repeatedly, the diagnostic method for transgenderism is malpractice-suit worthy; it’s not based on medical science but on feelings. “Transgender” is not a scientific designation — it’s a political one.
    Thus is it unsurprising that many people who “transition,” as they call it, have regrets. A good example is Australian boy Patrick Mitchell, who at 12 years old was allowed to begin female-hormone “treatment” but two years later changed his mind.
    In fact, studies show that upwards of 80 percent of girls and 90 percent of boys who strongly “identify” as the opposite sex naturally outgrow the psychological problem.
    But something else left behind here is astonishing. These feminists rail against transgenderism and its proponents’ denial of science, yet appear oblivious to how feminism set the stage for it, having also denied science.

    For decades, including during my youth, the dominant feminist theory was “gender neutrality.” It stated that the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences; thus, if you raised boys and girls identically, they would be identical except for primary and secondary sexual characteristics.

    This theory was politically convenient. After all, if traditional sex roles and barriers keeping women from certain professions (e.g., police, firefighting) were believed to have no basis in biology — in reality — it was easy to justify overturning them.

    To this end feminists made outrageous claims, such as that if women had always enjoyed the same sporting opportunities, they’d equal men in athletics. Then there was the story feminist author Camille Paglia, a confessed lesbian, told about how feminists would corner her on college campuses in the ’70s, swear that hormones didn’t exist and that, even if they did, they couldn’t possibly influence behavior.

    So here’s the feminist-transgender (d)evolution: Feminists insisted the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences.
    Three is that... and then there is the times feminism say the exact opposite if that is what they benefit at that moment... because they can have it all...

    Then trans-activists came along and simply promulgated a corollary: If you change the superficial physical differences, the sexes will be the same, period.
    There absolutely is a straight line between the two movements. Trans-activists do deny biological science — but the feminists did it first.
    Then there’s the irony of feminists — who made famous the line “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” — calling on men for help with the trans plans. This wasn’t lost on the commenters under the PJ Media article, either, with one quipping, “A militant, lesbian, man-hating … feminist wants real men to ‘stand up for women’. Now that’s funny. I thought masculinity was toxic.”
    LOL... even they mock themselves for this 180 turn...

    For decades, feminists traded in misandry, impugning men and telling lies (e.g., on the intersex wage gap, domestic violence, etc.) designed to demonize them. To the point, they also cast chivalry as demeaning, and even holding a door for the wrong woman could bring a tongue lashing. But now they want some knights in shining armor — to rent, not buy.

    So are the feminists just proving an old stereotype? After all, they do say, “It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.”
    Well as a MGTOW... I think my opinion on this is more than clear...

    So, MRAs are going to answer the call and save the poor dears from evil men in skirts?

    After all... feminism consider trans to be evil for whatever male there is in them... as ultimately, all masculinity is evil, in their opinion... someone in this place feel like jumping in and take the call... and probably in 5 years be call a monster for attacking the trans because... well... you don't know when women will change their mind back again... LOL

  • #2
    Hi,

    very, very interesting. Good catch.
    IMO the crux of the matter is Miss Dansky's statement
    "If sex is construed to be gender identity, what that means is ..... that women and girls will no longer exist as a coherent category worthy of civil rights protection, and that is an absolute disaster",
    which has a double import.

    First there is the ontological aspect, so to speak, i.e. what happens if you eliminate a category, especially one so deeply entrenched on all levels throughout all times.
    It seems that some philosophy is yet necessary, the opinions of engineers notwithstanding.

    Eliminating both sex and gender as a category will of course remove the foundations for any and all kinds of sex and gender politics, so that reduces feminism to absurdity.

    The second aspect is of course the naked revelation of said politics, i.e. selecting one half of humanity as worthy of civil rights protection, implicitly against the other half.

    Absolute disaster? She ain't seen nothing yet.

    M

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
      Hi,

      very, very interesting. Good catch.
      IMO the crux of the matter is Miss Dansky's statement
      "If sex is construed to be gender identity, what that means is ..... that women and girls will no longer exist as a coherent category worthy of civil rights protection, and that is an absolute disaster",
      which has a double import.

      First there is the ontological aspect, so to speak, i.e. what happens if you eliminate a category, especially one so deeply entrenched on all levels throughout all times.
      It seems that some philosophy is yet necessary, the opinions of engineers notwithstanding.

      Eliminating both sex and gender as a category will of course remove the foundations for any and all kinds of sex and gender politics, so that reduces feminism to absurdity.

      The second aspect is of course the naked revelation of said politics, i.e. selecting one half of humanity as worthy of civil rights protection, implicitly against the other half.

      Absolute disaster? She ain't seen nothing yet.

      M
      Yes, it looks like the issue is a lot more deeper than what I actually though it was... It is not just the simple offence of assuming the appearance of a traditional woman... but, as you point out, it is the deep reflection of what does it mean to be a woman anymore?

      And it sure must eat them in their own core, for instance the standard dictionary definition of feminism as:

      "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes."

      What this definition actually means? when we establish that there is not really sexes and being a woman is just a social construct that people assume or not as part of their identity if they feel so, or not...

      Feminism in it's core need the existence of traditional gender roles to continue their social revolution against.... traditional gender roles... as you said, it is absurdity...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by simpleman View Post

        Yes, it looks like the issue is a lot more deeper than what I actually though it was... It is not just the simple offence of assuming the appearance of a traditional woman... but, as you point out, it is the deep reflection of what does it mean to be a woman anymore?

        And it sure must eat them in their own core, for instance the standard dictionary definition of feminism as:

        "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes."

        What this definition actually means? when we establish that there is not really sexes and being a woman is just a social construct that people assume or not as part of their identity if they feel so, or not...

        Feminism in it's core need the existence of traditional gender roles to continue their social revolution against.... traditional gender roles... as you said, it is absurdity...

        "There are no differences between the sexes ... in fact, there are no sexes ... and therefore, we vow to fight for one of them. Join us!"

        M

        Comment

        Working...
        X