/tech/ - Tech

Technology.

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(94.13 KB 871x960 zzbkpj2mj3531.jpg)
Leftist Tech Communities? Comrade 05/29/2020 (Fri) 21:06:08 No. 1930
Is there something like HackerNews but not infested by Silly Valley's libertarian STEMlords and VC-bootlicking hustlers?
>>3368 so the movie johnny mnemonic was right then
(66.61 KB 960x828 Dsi1me8WsAANyer.jpg)
>>3366 Opposing trans-pol is literaly saying no to identity-based politics. You assert that the way sex works in society doesn't come down to your own perception of youself, but that is a social category with it's role in the (capitalist) division of labour. And just because the pre-capitalist forms of families and local-communities have been disolving, changing the way our productive relationships are reproduced, doesn't mean we should support trans agenda (and their corporate allies, because don't forget: there has never been a more profitable civil rights movement than those who need constant medical therapy to even exist).
le bumb
anyone know what this is about? https://gnulag.net/
>>3399 if you give a fuck whether people inject estrogen you're fueling reactionary politics. that's all you need to know.
>>4151 How's that even related to anything >>3399 said? I just want one quote, as to how >>3399 relates to caring about what individuals do. If questioning anything is reactionary, we're lost.
>>4157 what are we questioning here exactly?
>>4161 le trannies. and NO it's not idpol to derail every thread screeching about them because they're basically bourgeois okay you stupid fkn TRANNY
(630.60 KB 830x830 1586285163788.jpg)
>>4162 not the other guy. Please explain to me how it is 'basically' bourgeois? Depression, which is a huge issue at the moment, also creates huge need for 'medical therapy' to exist. Do we not support depressed people since they are bourgeois? Do we do the liberal 'there's kids starving in Africa be happy' bullshit? Regardless of why the conditions these people find themselves in have formed, they still deserve our respect and comrade-ship. The psychiatry industry should be denounced in general by leftists, since this seeks to 'fix' the individual, instead of the society that has caused their problems, but they shouldn't be against the people that are victims of these institutions, otherwise you just become a reactionary. Which is what you seem to be: a reactionary. You don't seek to change the world or destroy bourgeois society, you wish to keep spooked gender norms and positions. You know women can never be truly free without the abolition of Capital, right? Does this mean we shouldn't protect female comrades and fight for their rights within capitalism? Of course not. Workers will never be free under capitalism, but we still fight for wage increases. Same shit applies for transgender people. I look forward to your explanation here, since I'm interested in this debate, but if you want to talk about "corporate allies" (we all know companies don't represent a movement, they will latch on for profit), and call people tranny's and shit then please don't bother and go back to stupidpol.
>>4161 1. >>3399 gave a materialist argument against the transgender world view, and explains how it blinds actual analysis. 2. >>4151 heard something bad being said about transgender people, and dismissed the topic as potentially dangerous (which is ironic considering >>3399's image).
(142.42 KB 860x756 1585349762206.png)
>>4166 I'm >>3399, so I'll not answer to "'basically' bourgeois", because I have no idea what that's about. I don't think that depression is the best analog, but let's consider that for a moment: How do you treat depression? You can either prescribe pills that set in quickly, but wear off, or you could engage in proper therapy to understand yourself and your situation, to overcome the state of depression and grow as a human being. The first approach is infinity easier easier and faster, but it doesn't "solve" anything. It is the individualization of an illness, that disregards the subject and it's context. The second approach might not work, could take so long that it becomes more expensive, etc. but it's the only real way out. The difference between depression and gender dysphoria is that you're not going to find someone who thought they had depression for 5 years, but they then noticed it was something else. If it came out that a clinician was prescribing anti-depression medication, without proper consideration, that would be a scandal. But that's exactly what de-transitioners have been reporting: Doctors and psychiatrists have been giving people medication and therapy, cutting the time you should have to wait, etc. be it for their own gain or to avoid being denounced. More on that here: https://medium.com/@sue.donym1984/inauthentic-selves-the-modern-lgbtq-movement-is-run-by-philanthropic-astroturf-and-based-on-junk-d08eb6aa1a4b A far better comparison, is that of Anorexia to Gender Dysphoria. People have pointed out that especially among (often insecure or otherwise burdened) teenagers, gender dysphoria can "spread" like anorexia does -- by example (see Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria). The ultimate goal when treating someone with Anorexia is never to have them conform to their delusions. It's to help them overcome it, and accept themselves the way they are. This can be fought on the individual level, by helping the person affected by it, but also on a social level, by de-stigmatizing (often) female bodies, that don't conform to artificial ideals (The documentary "Killing us Softly", explains this well). So too, "gender dysphoria" is real, but it is ultimately destructive. Treating it with medication and operations has been shown to not help much, as depressions levels tend to be even higher among post-transitioners. The reason for this is that "gender dsyphoria" is more often a symptom of a greater personal unrest, than the issue itself. And it too should be treated individually, by helping people to accept themselves as they are, but also by tackling gender stereotypes that shun males or females that don't conform to idealized versions of past centuries (just try paying attention to how often a transgender person claims they knew it all along, because they wanted to play with dolls as boy, or trucks as a girl). This means that there is no Gender (it's a spook as you say), while Sex is real (but shouldn't matter in modern society, beyond the directly sexual). In the end, the saddest thing about all of this is, that many people have difficulties reading this, and not conflating this with animosity and a will to "kill" transgender people. Conservatives and traditionalists have managed to monopolize any opposition to the transgender conversation, and it's not that unprobable, that they actually would want them killed. But I say: Human Rights are Trans Rights -- every right a transgender activist might want to demand is guaranteed if Human Rights are enforced. There should be no reason to attack, discriminate or otherwise harm people affected by "gender dysphoria". I hope you find that we agree on a lot more than you think, and I apologize for the wall of text.
>>4177 Sorry it seemed you were the same person. No need to apologize for the wall, I have one coming as well. Well yes these are the options to 'treat' the illness. But the illness only exists as a reaction to outward stimulus. If you work hard all day doing something you hate, to get alienated while your boss rides around in his yacht then it would be very easy to become depressed. This can be treated with pills, and therapy (i.e. make yourself class cucked as a means of survival), and this would *cure* you in some manner of the word, but us leftist seek to solve the deeper problems rather than paint over them like soc dems. These solutions, pills or therapy can similarly be applied to another 'mental illness'. Because of how family works and how gender identity is thrusted onto individuals the logical reaction is a backlash when it comes to this identity, do we then seek to solve these problems within a capitalist framework, or do we seek the bigger picture? We don't actually know how these 'illnesses' will develop under communism, but that won't stop us getting therapy under capitalism, since a suicidal-doomer comrade isn't super useful, neither is one that is extremely anxious over their body (gender dysphoria). Depression is the most diagnosed illness in the UK, I find it very hard to believe drugs aren't largely over-prescribed too, also I can see depression being misdiagnosed. I mean it is just a result of some circumstances in ones life, like gender-problems. Either way I'm not defending how our society tackles the issue. The idea that real doctors are selling out to not be 'denounced' does seem like a bit of pol propaganda though. >89 minute read Maybe later, lol. If it says anywhere that doctors are told to prescribe a certain amount, or if there's a certain rate of trans people that should be given meds, then yeah I'll agree with you this is an issue specific to trans people, otherwise it sounds like typical overworked doctors in shitty ol' capitalism again. I feel you make a few claims here that are unsubstantiated, I think many mental illness spread socially, it doesn't mean they are all tackled in the same way. And for now I will assume these things you claim are correct (even though it is very dubious, since studies get awfully represented in the media) -gender dysphoria is destructive -medications and operations lead to more depresssion -is a symptom of greater unrest These things can be true, and 'trans' people still exist, medication only works on the metric you assign, if depression medication was measured by its ability to get my dick hard then it wouldn't be very successful. Gender dysphoria only becomes destructive when placed in a society which doesn't accept it. If you transition it is likely your gender dysphoria will lessen, but depression will increase because you will be under anxiety and pressure from the world around you to conform. All this says is that capitalism is bad, as we already know. So how is your argument different to the argument against homosexuals. It would definitely spread among children socially, since sexuality (like gender) is a social phenomenon. It would definitely be seen as 'unnatural', and 100 years ago they definitely thought repression would have worked. But look where we are now, we can see repression doesn't work at all and the best method for treating the 'homosexual' is to just let them live their lives without pressure from the outside world. Gender is a spook, but so is 99% of what anyone says about race. Is it not an important to consider these ideas? It is also a spook to consider the bourgeois family is something holy and something that will remain forever. However we seek to abolish the machinery that maintains this bourgeois invention, and after that we have no idea of what will happen with family, gender, sex, etc. (material conditions and all that stuff) (also read Engels Origin of the Family) I find this last bit a tad suspect. Who's 'Human Rights' are we using? What about the human right to private property? Black people also have 'human rights'. In the US humans can be arrested and killed by the police if they are deemed to pose a threat, yet we know as leftists that the mass incarceration of black people in the US for pseudo-slave-labour is an injustice. We still will fight for the right of women to reject society and not be forever tied to husbands to survive. Wage slavery is total within human rights >hurrr the worker chose to work for the capitalist there's nothing wrong here! It ignores the context that we should be considering as Marxists.
>>4171 I'm >>4151 you can say all the bad shit you want about transsexuals or transgender, I really really do not give a fuck. but "opposing trans-pol" in the name of "materialism" sounds either like retarded political suicide. if not it's superfluous. why should I care about anything else? <YOU WANT TO APPEASE THE BOURGS no I just want people to shut the fuck up about culture war shit for once in their fucking lives. shits so tiresome man
great "thread" btw
>>4194 Interesting trend here, talking about how people that are on the """anti""" trans side of the argument by assuming the otherside is 'dismissing' because their opinions are oh so real and unrestrained. About how they have some great truth that 'people have difficulty reading', how about we just discuss it and we can decide who's side is worth the title of "truth", rather than assume the other is some triggered SJW strawman?
(16.83 KB 300x388 k55nl.jpg)
>>4183 I agree that in most cases, the structural context does determine the individual and his perception of the world. Therapy usually give an individualist analysis, but I don't think this is necessary. > but that won't stop us getting therapy under capitalism, since a suicidal-doomer comrade isn't super useful, neither is one that is extremely anxious over their body (gender dysphoria). Neither is a hormone addict or someone who will betray a insurrection in the name of trans-recognition. Sadly I see this kind of mindset too often to think of trans-people as revolutionary utilities. > Depression is the most diagnosed illness in the UK, I find it very hard to believe drugs aren't largely over-prescribed too, also I can see depression being misdiagnosed. No doubt! But consider the difference between taking anti-depression medication and hormone-blockers as a teen or having a 5-10x higher estrogen level than a biological woman. The path of least harm would be to come up with Antidepressant for gender dysphoria, but of course that's haram. > otherwise it sounds like typical overworked doctors in shitty ol' capitalism again. Why not both? Here's a relatable scenario: You (the doctor) put of hormone therapy for a while, for the sake of medical precautions, but your always-online client starts talking about it to the hive on twitter. A journalist picks this up, and starts writing an article, by calling the hospital to get their "take" on the subject. To not loose funding or donations, they agree to transfer, demote or even fire you for being trans-skeptical. If you've ever witnessed this happening to one of your colleges, you'll just play along to not get caught up in any drama. > So how is your argument different to the argument against homosexuals. I think the line can clearly be drawn between accepting people's preferences (the LGB part of LGBT) and playing along with their self-delusions. What medication does does a homosexual need? How does the world have to change (beyond the individual level, of things like acceptance, understanding, etc.) to accommodate homosexuals? None, basically. Compare that to the trans-movement, that has in the last 10 years has had a lot faster gain in acceptance than almost any civil-rights movement ever. You can't just "let them live", when the movement intrinsically demands more. To me it seems like it's because they are more lucrative, but who knows. > Gender is a spook, but so is 99% of what anyone says about race. Is it not an important to consider these ideas? There are differences though, gender is historically more essential, as elaborated in >>3399. Race is a much younger concept, who's role in the material process of production is far lower. > I find this last bit a tad suspect. Who's 'Human Rights' are we using? I used "human rights", for lack of a better phrase. I mean the common acceptance of fellow humans *as* humans of intrinsic value. Think of Kant's "Kingdom of Ends", that famously would stand in conflict with capitalism. I am familiar with the critical history of the phrase, but I assure you that that intellectual tradition is orthogonal to what I'm saying. >>4194 > but "opposing trans-pol" in the name of "materialism" sounds either like retarded political suicide. I'm not sure if you noticed, but the acceptance of trans-pol has been the worst suicide move of the left in recent years. Everything from the alt-right to populist movements has been fueled by fear-mongering that the left wants to impose transexuality on society, and in turn, they haven't done a good job in refuting it. I'd bet that transexuals and trans-right activists have done more political harm (indirectly) than even some top-ranking right-wing propagandists. >>4195 I know, right?
>hmmmm today I will slide another thread by screeching about trannies Good job glow nigger, 1 (one) Libracoin has been deposited in your account
(18.52 KB 489x424 kt2ekvby9hn21.jpg)
Come on these boards aren't active, let us debate, it's hardly screeching. The firefox thread is 10x more cringe than this. >>4201 Why would a trans comrade trade in the revolution for trans-recognition if we all just recognize them as existent? They would have nothing to gain under my leadership, yet you wish to alienate them. Regardless most 'normal' workers can be bought off to sell out the revolution since that is thee nature of the revolution. And like the previous guy in the thread said, does it matter if they are hormone addicts? I'm a 'coffee addict', who cares? Are they proles? Yes? Then they have potential to support the revolution. >But consider the difference between taking anti-depression medication and hormone-blockers as a teen But without the recognition of gender as a made up social construct, people can't escape from the desire to 'feel' woman by growing tits, they can simply decide. The problem is the outside world enforcing an identity onto them that comes into conflict with their internal view. Trans teen needs therapy and such to get to chemical transitions, it isn't just about walking to the shop to buy some estrogen. I'd even go one step further and say, who cares? If they make a mistake and 'harm' their body, who cares? I could go aquire a tattoo as a teen and it would 'ruin' my body in the mind of stuffy conservatives, but at the end of the day does this matter? I feel without the stigma against tattoos, we wouldn't get as many people getting impulsive "Fuck you dad!" tattoos. >Here's a relatable scenario: You (the doctor) put of hormone therapy for a while, for the sake of medical precautions, but your always-online client starts talking about it to the hive on twitter. A journalist picks this up, and starts writing an article... Okay so you've had to completely invent some specific example to prove your point. This argument is pretty much useless because of this. And before you say I did the same thing, my example serves to show you that you can't pull the conclusions you have from your data, since there are other variables at play. The fact you would even promote this work of imagination shows you are in some sort of trans-propaganda-rabbit-hole. Yes this scenario is possible, but still getting rid of capitalism would solve it since we wouldn't have these journalists that need to pump out garbage to get by. So why go for trans people when we can go for capitalism instead? >I think the line can clearly be drawn between accepting people's preferences (the LGB part of LGBT) and playing along with their self-delusions YOU think the line can be drawn. Because you happen to be born in a period of time where gay people are very widely accepted. I'd say the gay man needs some sex drug that rightfully invigorates them to their 'human nature' to mate with a woman like a 'real man'. Or gay conversion therapy, which still exists! So right we have accepted the gay delusion, why can't we accept the gender delusion as well? >The movement demands more than let them live How does it? If the world accepted them then they wouldn't feel the need so intensely to take hormones and therapy, since they wouldn't feel the need to fit into social categorizes. This is the same for homosexuality, we just need to fully accept that it is rightful to sleep with who you want, and it is also a right to 'feel' how you want without outward pressure to force people to act a certain level of femininity or masculinity. Homosexuality is also 'lucrative', all the gay merchandise, the fact they don't have as much children so gay people become more wealthy and more likely to enter into petite-bourgeois-dom, idk gay people also get more STD's for various reasons, these need medication to be prescribed... I could go on. So now do you think homosexuality is a bourgeois delusion, or do you think that business coop movements for their own gain? If I change my name and ask you to call me by my new name will you go >No I refuse to play by your delusion! Names are made up, just like some arbitrary gender identity. >gender is historically more essential What do you mean by this? So I wish to destroy the idea that blacks somehow another 'race', that is inherently different, as in that they are violent, stupid, etc. This is ridiculous, but I think the divison between people can only truly be destroyed alongside capitalism. The same goes for women's rights. I will still support these people, but I primarily seek the destruction capitalism for their movements' sake. >the acceptance of trans-pol has been the worst suicide move of the left in recent years This is another ridiculous claim in my opinion. It's clear we don't support 'more trans CEOs, more Women CEOs' etc, we support the peoples' right to not be oppressed. I.e not being killed for being trans. Which is something that happens, so no wonder this movement has gained momentum. The western left has been dead for a long time, blaming it on trans people, an actually alive movement, is nothing but proclaiming your own inadequacy. I could make the argument that veganism was worse, it was the precursor for the 'left is weak feeble hipsters' meme (not that the right weren't all saying this same shit 50 years ago...), don't get me wrong fuck vegans. Please let us shift the blame onto vegans, they are far more bourgeois than trans people, have themselves chosen to muddy the left by bringing non-humans into our fight for rights. Still I wouldn't 'blame' the state of the left on any nonleft group, it is silly to do so. But the fact that there is a corporate movement for more black-booj's doesn't mean we don't support the black struggle. I don't know if you're being inflammatory but the use of "transexual" would show a lack of knowledge on the topic, since this term isn't used anymore.
>>4204 You aren't screeching, the poster that saw a thread about tech communities and decided he'd make post no.6*10^5 about how trannies have ruined le left by, uh, existing is
(40.00 KB 680x833 1565715878594.jpg)
Am I naive to believe that this issue can be fixed? There is in my eyes no doubt that there is a problem. But people are driving me mad when they act like they don't see it. Is it intentional, or do they sincerely believe what they say? I once was on their side, I once looked away when people came to warn me. But I had sympathy for those deemed crazy and wrong. I listened and saw what I shouldn't have. Now I just ask for sympathy and an ear for me. >>4204 > Then they have potential to support the revolution. Sure, everyone has the potential. I don't think there's much to say here without hard data. It's my perception that trans-activists would oppose any revolution if they don't stand anything to gain, but then again, I'm a transphobe, so I might be biased. > Trans teen needs therapy and such to get to chemical transitions, it isn't just about walking to the shop to buy some estrogen. I have mentioned above that there are multiple factors that have been pushing from "you need factual therapy" to "you just have to ask kindly", as reported by detransitioners and therapists. > I'd even go one step further and say, who cares? I do, for the same reason I oppose drugs and support safety belts. A society should protect it's vulnerable members, and avoid unnecessary/avoidable harm. I mean, hormone blockers are suspected to sterilize people, because there haven't been any long term tests, and this should be ok, because they are under the perception that they are "the wrong gender"? I'd say there's something off. > So why go for trans people when we can go for capitalism instead? 1. I'm not going "for trans people". My issue is not the people themselves, as I have been emphasizing over and over again. It's the theoretical misconceptions that harm a proper analysis and the general harm done by people pushing this. 2. There's no conflict between the two. My critique is derived from an opposition to capitalism. I recognize the trans-narrative as a symptom of how the role of gender in production has dissolved, while it's structures have been reified culturally. It's just another contradiction in capitalism, that has to be recognized, not played along with. > So right we have accepted the gay delusion, why can't we accept the gender delusion as well? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you can't tell the difference between sexual preferences and whatever "gender dysphoria" is supposed to be? > How does it? If the world accepted them then they wouldn't feel the need so intensely to take hormones and therapy, since they wouldn't feel the need to fit into social categorizes. And that they have an intrinsic right to cosmetic operations, on the same level as a cancer patient has to therapy. And that claiming you're a woman/man makes you woman/man, without any effort beyond that. etc. Again, there is an obvious difference between sexual preferences and the requirements that trans-activists make of society. Am I really crazy to see this? Please tell me how to unsee this! > Homosexuality is also 'lucrative', all the gay merchandise This "lucrativeness" is coincidental, not essential. For one the merchandise are flags and stickers, for the other it's flags, stickers, hormone therapy and surgery. > What do you mean by this? The modern notions of race to which racism refers are notions from the mid 19th century. And even if you want to transistorize the idea, and claim "racism" in the 1850's USA was the same as in Rome as in ancient China, etc. (which is wrong) these are all products of a relatively advanced societal state, while as you say sex and it's social construct, gender, have played an essential role in how societies produce and reproduce probably even before homo sapiens were dominant. But while gender played a necessary role in the division of labor (the coming generation is split around 50%-50% into two productive categories), the advance of civilization has progressed beyond the necessity or usefulness of such a crude division. What's left is only the hull of the social force that reproduced the gender-relation (hence reified), while productively it has not been necessary for quite a while now (Marx even notes how in the mid-19th century women started working jobs that in turn increased consumption, if I recall correctly). > This is another ridiculous claim in my opinion. You know what, I'll give you that. There have been so many mistakes the left has made, so many reactions it was forced into, that this is barely anything in comparison. > I don't know if you're being inflammatory but the use of "transexual" would show a lack of knowledge on the topic, since this term isn't used anymore. Nope, my mistake, I confuse the two terms, but not intentionally. >>4202 >>4207 I have given my best to keep the discussion civil, and apologize if I have annoyed you. There have been a few sentences and paragraphs I wrote that I deleted, because I thought they were too inflammatory, and that's not my interest. Where would be a better place to continue this conversation? I feel like /leftypol/ would be too crowded, and /tech/ is the only board I actually visit.
(103.91 KB 606x720 monkeread.jpg)
>>4209 Okay I wrote a big reply but I lost it. So I haven't really got the time to go as in depth as I could have. I know I shouldn't compose these in the browser... The main question I have is: what would you do with the masses of trans people right now? It seems you want them all in therapy, not using resources getting meds or surgery. You say you have no issue with the people, but the consequence is that you seek treatment which, to trans people, isn't effective, which directly impacts the individual people. Over what? Your own personal sentiments of how people 'should' act. The point isn't to say gay=trans. The point is the in the past people thought gay people were delusional, because that is the reaction to strange concepts that go against bourgeois society. You know what they did with women they started getting abortions and exerting autonomy? They called them witches! We know NOW that this is silly, same with homosexuality, so why can't the same hold for transgender people? You talk about the harm it does, and how it all sounds like such a bad thing, but is it? How many people take hormones who 'aren't really trans'? It is impossible to say for sure, since society is providing constant pressure on them to conform. Yet even with this constant pressure from bourgeois society, trans people still exist! Does this not propose some merit to them? Or the fact that intersex people exist, and there have been many cultures that don't fit into the male-female binary before? Gender is, by definition, an identity. Why should we, as a society, restrict the means of which people can express their identities? Would you ban piercings under socialism too? This definitely 'harms' the body, and can cause irreversible damage. I mean what about fucking marathon running. This can cause life long knee damage, 10x worse than having a moustache or something. Not to mention the energy exerted running a marathon could be used for infinitely better purposes, building houses for the homeless or something. Are you going to ban running also? So who gets to decide where these personal issues end? You claim that the problem is how they 'force the world to play with the delusion' but what do you actually have to do? Like I said, if I changed my name, many people would find it very easy just to call me by my new name, since it isn't complex. Should we shame depressed people since society has to conform by inventing antidepressants? This is where I think transphobia, and not facts, are shaping your opinions. >Right to cosmetic operations I haven't heard any trans person say that their cosmetic needs are on the same level of cancer treatment. I challenge you to find one (clearly non-retarded) trans person who would take cosmetic surgery over someone getting treatment for cancer. Anyways there are many conservatives who think people don't have a right to cancer treatment anyway. I ask you: why do they have a right to that cancer treatment? Why should I have to pay taxes to treat *someone else's* problem? Do I have a right to depression treatment? Then why shouldn't I get the right to change my genitals if I so wish? (this is implying a socialist post-medical-scarcity society). The answer is that we should work to make these things a right. The USA has the resources to give everyone free healthcare, but it doesn't. Why is genital surgery such a big deal for you? It's not like it will ever be EASY for people to remove their genitals, and if they want to, why stop them as society? It isn't 'harm', it is harm TO YOU. It is their body, like piercings, it harms them, but I won't ban piercings because people derive a greater pleasure from them.
Oh and I think the issue is that this was brought up in this thread at all. Posts like this >>3158 >>3160 >>3162 >>3171 Are ones which very rarely lead to constructive discussion and just derail threads.
(148.74 KB 640x960 1463166875984.jpg)
>>4211 > The main question I have is: what would you do with the masses of trans people right now? First of all, there at not "masses of trans people". They are a minuscule part of the population. I'd bet those serious about it are even fewer. I want the tone of the conversation to change from submissively accepting everything a trans-activist claims, to a more critical and reasonable perspective. There are people who have already been lost to this cause, but far more that can be saved. > trans people still exist! What does this even mean? The individuals who believe they are trans exist? That's a truism. Or are people who use this phrase trying to say "trans people are right [in their conception of gender]", while trying to cover up that this is a social discussion, that has never been finished. > Or the fact that intersex people exist, and there have been many cultures that don't fit into the male-female binary before? Intersex people are a biological reality, and a necessary product of evolution. They are reduced to arguments by trans-activists, when arguing against people who say that gender and sex are real, linked and constant -- which is not what I'm doing. Coincidentally, did you know that the trans community stole the words AFAB/AMAB from Intersex people? It used to mean that these people were worked on medically to make them appear either "actually male" or "actually female", whatever was easier. This brutal practice was erased by trans activists, by equaling to the mere checking of a baby's genital. And on the topic of "other cultures", there is nearly no culture (at least that I have heard of) where a gender besides male or female were considered equal. Almost always, it was a means of oppression, slavery or public shaming. This image is invoked with some kind of a noble savage intent, but in the end once again hides the violence of gender. > Gender is, by definition, an identity. Why should we, as a society, restrict the means of which people can express their identities? No! Gender is a social category (as I have been pointing out over the entire conversation), is given/assumed NOT something an individual can pick and choose. And as capitalism slowly erodes institutions of gender, we should accept this as progress, not try to keep it alive by all means. But this is what the trans-narrative resists, and why it should be considered reactionary. In overcoming gender, one must overcome the transgender narrative, for the latter cannot exist without the former. > Would you ban piercings under socialism too? This is not a legal debate, talking about banning or allowing. I don't even think the categories make much sense, at least not from our perspective. > You claim that the problem is how they 'force the world to play with the delusion' but what do you actually have to do? Ask the women shunned as TERFs. I know someone will dismiss this as white-knight'ing, because the issue doesn't affect me individually (that's why I'm "debating" this here, and not publicly where it would matter), but who cares? I think this perspective gives me better tools for analyzing history and society. > Should we shame depressed people since society has to conform by inventing antidepressants? Sorry, I don't get the analogy here... > This is where I think transphobia, and not facts, are shaping your opinions. Transphobia is the irrational fear of trans people, right? I totally admit that I have this. They scare the hell out of me, whenever I see them. But that's just an inclination. An irrational fear cannot provide or refute an argument. I hope I have not done so, please tell me if I have. > I challenge you to find one (clearly non-retarded) trans person who would take cosmetic surgery over someone getting treatment for cancer. I admit the example was bad. All I can offer are the people who were complaining (I want to say "crying", but that sounds polemic) about their "gender affirming" therapies being deferred because of the corona pandemic: - https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/03/23/coronavirus-trans-healthcare-gender-reaffirming-essential-surgery-cancelled-vice/ - https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/4/3/21204305/coronavirus-transgender-economy-health-care - https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-surgeries-postponed-indefinitely-amid-coronavirus-pandemic-n1167756 - https://meaww.com/transgender-people-face-delays-gender-affirming-life-saving-surgeries-hospitals-coronavirus-cases Notice the emphasis on "life saving". The reason for this is that they are threading to kill themselves if they don't do what they want (which related to the previous point about pressuring therapists -- you never want people to find out your client harmed or killed themselves). > this is implying a socialist post-medical-scarcity society To be honest, I can't say. In that case, there would be a lot of differences. It's still basically body mutilation, at least the way I see it, but it doesn't come at anyone else's expense. Then again, rights are the language of the state, and that's not the language we would be speaking in a post-capitalist society... > Why is genital surgery such a big deal for you? It's unnecessary, as already explain, and not the solution. Should hospitals just amputate anyone who comes in, just because they say so? We should not assume that the patient is always right -- doing so is a side-effect of the comercialisation of health-case where the patient is the customer. I see no difference between this and preventing people from taking drugs like heroin or meth. We do this to protect people from doing mistakes, and as all my posts have argued, there's no upside: You reject yourself, get addicted to hormones, and disturb your own "ecosystem" with unnatural hormone levels, irreversibly mutilate your own body, risk self-serialization, increase the risk of depression and suicide, expose yourself to constant pressure to conform to made up gender-roles, equate your existence with the legitimacy of your choices. A society isn't just the set of all individuals, but their relations as well. As social animals, we help each other out, and prevent harm. Allowing gender therapy, is in this sense, anti-social.
(34.49 KB 748x599 cmuufonzkdb31.jpg)
>>4213 Okay you have heard some 'arguments' used and are trying to apply them here where they do not hold. First things first you have failed to answer the main question of the entire post. Regardless of if they are 'trans' or 'think-they're-trans' what would you do with them? I don't care if you want to gulag them, but you are avoiding a (what is undoubtedly a very 'transphobic') answer. You're not on facebook, be honest. They exist enough to cause this discussion to occur, I don't care how many there are or if they 'think' they're transgender, we both know who we're talking about. As a transphobe you seem awfully sympathetic towards intersex people, I've seen this a lot. Transphobia is most famously hidden behind a 'defense' of women, rather than an argument on its own. >There is no culture where other genders considered equal There is no culture where male and females are equal. What is the point? That other genders are literally unequal? And this is proved by nature? >Noble savage Bruh this isn't a youtube video essay, that is completely irrelevant. All the point is that transgenderism isn't a completely alien concept that has only just come up. It has existed in various cultures before, and intersex people show that the sex spectrum isn't a binary, so why should the 'social catagory' that we use to fit people by gender be a binary? >Gender is a social category (as I have been pointing out over the entire conversation), is given/assumed NOT something an individual can pick and choose. Because people have never tried to control their social categories... Again I don't think you seem very up to date with the real trans-narrative. It's mostly just people wanting to be called by the names the request. I would say a majority are gender abolitionist, which is what we both desire. The old school 'transexuals' are the ones who desire to keep this rigid divide between the genders, and consequently this means trans people require operations and meds to fit in to their self-allocated social category, rather than destroying it all together. >This is not a legal debate, talking about banning or allowing. Yes it is, I'm asking you what you would do with trans people and you're just avoiding it. The arguments you had for calling trans people delusional applies to my examples, yet you don't wish to tackle this it seems... >Ask the TERFs Like you said, trans people make up a small part of the global population, I have zero sympathy for bourgeois women who seek to destroy the safety net these (you said these words:) vulnerable people have. >Sorry, I don't get the analogy here... You posit that forcing society to mould to trans people, i.e. giving them meds and surgery, it a great injustice. I say in return that a depressed person forces society to conform to them by creating an industry of therapy and anti-depressants. But you won't attack depressed people, who harm themselves with drugs to satiate their delusions, yet you call yourself transphobe. >Transphobia is the irrational fear of trans people, right? Come on dude we can't go further if you're going to try and pull this. You know VERY well what a transphobe is, stop being a retard. This link dump is not exactly relevant to the question, I shall look at it anyways. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness like depression, if I said my depression pills were 'life saving' you wouldn't be making the same argument about me being hysterical, you would just take my illness seriously, and at face value. >The first article <“None of us are angry at medical staff, or even the decisions, but at the system – which is so lacking in resilience, and lets us down so regularly,” she added. <In the UK, it takes several years to get gender-affirming healthcare – like hormone treatments and gender-confirming surgery – on the NHS. I can attest that we should 100% complain about how the UK government treats the NHS, it may seem like crying to you but this is a huge problem here and I stand with trans people against bourgeois governments. Imagine waiting 5 years to get surgery which (you fully FEEL) would improve your life greatly. Wouldn't you be a tad annoyed? >Second article It's literally about some extremely poor prole. If you don't want a complete overhaul of the US healthcare system so that it treats everyone better, without bankrupting them, then you don't belong on this board. >Before the pandemic, the unemployment rate was at near-historic lows, but trans people were still three times more likely than their cisgender peers to be unemployed, according to the 2015 US Transgender Survey. Meanwhile, 29 percent of trans people live in poverty, and one in five trans people in the US will experience homelessness in their lifetimes. Why don't you try turn them into socialists as opposed to just writing them off as mentally ill for not falling into some strict social category? >Postponed indefinitely Yeah I'd be annoyed >Same shit Yeah I refer back to my depression argument. If I had pills (treatment) for my depression (gender dysphoria) and then I had to wait 5 years to get this treatment that could stop me from killing myself (gender dysphoria suicide / depressed suicide) then yes I would call that life saving and I would be well within my right to call it that. >Body mutilation Are you a right winger? I'm not saying pro-trans=leftwing but your arguments fundamentally are suspicious. Not to discredit you without argument, I'm just curious. Why do you care? Like I said earlier, piercings are body mutilation, will you ban that too? Will you ban tattoos alongside genital surgery? Will you ban marathon running because of the poor knees?! No! You won't because you're posturing some vague moralization bullshit about the value of a 'pure' human body. If I take meth I am putting my mental state in an objectively long term worse place and can forever destroy my mental capacities. The same is not true for gender reassignment surgery, it is merely cosmetic. It's not like everyone will get this surgery, like we've said it takes years to get it, so people would have to be committed. And why compare this to chopped a leg off? Is your penis as useful as your leg? False equivalence which may work on idiots but I've heard it all before. What's next, attack helicopter? You cry about them 'mutilating' themselves, as if it's an objectively awful thing to remove ones penis, then act like you care about them by presenting your argument as supremely 'social', it is very slimey. You fuss over the 'ecosystem' of the body, what's next, how your body is a temple? There is no place for such vulgar spiritualism on the left. I mean it's not like you want trans people to be sterile, think of how they will raise there kids after all! The rest of the problems are that of society forcing people to act a certain way that pertains to their social category, without this these problems dissolve.
>>4223 I don't understand why something should be "done" with trans people. I just want a change in mentality, I want people to not belive everything trans people claim, just like you don't believe an anorexic that they are too thin. Is that really so hard to believe? This is an honest question, I am really surprised. As already mentioned, a lot of people default to thinking/assuming that any opposition to the trans worldview is based in a hatred or an urge to destroy them. I emphasis, again, that nothing I say is fueled by hatred. I have no reason to lie, because this post is anonymous. > There is no culture where male and females are equal. What is the point? Yes, but any further gender always had it worse. The point is that these genders were never means of "self expression", but of oppression, and that claiming anything else is a dishonest, ahistorical argument. > All the point is that transgenderism isn't a completely alien concept that has only just come up. But it is. "Transgenderism" is a modern concept, I direct product (or side-effect) of our modern society. > intersex people show that the sex spectrum isn't a binary, so why should the 'social catagory' that we use to fit people by gender be a binary? Sex isn't a binary, I hope I never claimed anything to the contrary. I'm afraid you think that I'm defending the conservative position (sex and gender are real, correlated and constant), that I don't stand by. I fully accept that sex as a biological category cannot be cleanly divided into two groups (some might falsely say that this is evolution making "mistakes"), I add that this undermines any concept of gender. > It's mostly just people wanting to be called by the names the request. I would say a majority are gender abolitionist, which is what we both desire. It would be nice if that were the case, but "just call us by our names" has in my experience just been the timid excuse to make any opposition to transgender demands seem evil. I also don't see any real drive to gender abolitionism, at least in the sense that I have described. Do you have any examples? > Yes it is, I'm asking you what you would do with trans people and you're just avoiding it. You insist that I frame this like a nazi who wants to solve the jewish question, when I argue that this is not what I am talking about. This is a debate on position, and I argue that while transgenderism fits perfectly within a modern, progressive, liberal worldview, it stand in conflict with a communist/materialist one, rooted in an actual historical analysis of productive relations and the role of sex. > I have zero sympathy for bourgeois women who seek to destroy the safety net these (you said these words:) vulnerable people have. Nor do I, but that's unrelated. It seems you haven't engaged with so-called "TERF"s to understand their position, their backgrounds, and their reasoning. Learning from them has greatly helped me to understand the critical relationship between sex and society. The opposition to transgenderism is merely a corollary. > You posit that forcing society to mould to trans people, i.e. giving them meds and surgery, it a great injustice. I posit it's a mistake, not an injustice. They should be helped just like any other illness, but for some reason when "gender dysphoria" pops up, everyone is expected to believe everything the patient says. Imagine a medical professionals agreeing with someone who is suffering from panic attacks -- that's not helping, it's just making it worse, but that's besides the point now. > Come on dude we can't go further if you're going to try and pull this. You know VERY well what a transphobe is, stop being a retard. That is unironically my understanding, but I don't insist on it. Could you explain what you understand by "transphobic", and ideally also what you'd the condition I described? I don't want this to be the kind of situation, where the other side can't understand what I'm saying, because the critical vocabulary is missing (think of how conservatives understand communism to be "evil dictatorship"). > Are you a right winger? I don't know how after all this time, one phrase can make you think I'm a right winger? It's a fact that the human body is an eco-system, and like all eco-systems It's relatively fragile. Drink too much water, or don't go out in the sun enough, and your body suffers. This has nothing to do with mysticism or spiritualism. > And why compare this to chopped a leg off? Is your penis as useful as your leg? Fine, then a finger, or just it's tip. How about an ear or an eye? The question remains the same, and you can't just avoid it by trying to dismiss me via categorisation. Medicine shouldn't put it's patients into unnecessary danger, and in almost all cases of cosmetic surgeries, this is the case. But that's to be expected of medicine under capitalism... The other questions you raised have all been answered in >>4213. I'd gladly answer concrete questions, but please don't ask questions I have just answered.
You know, having contact and discussing opinions and world views different than your own is something very healthy.
>>4229 >I don't understand why something should be "done" with trans people. I just want a change in mentality, I want people to not belive everything trans people claim, just like you don't believe an anorexic that they are too thin. Is that really so hard to believe? not the other poster but you sure were (and continue to despite backpedaling) applying a lot of very specific statements of morality around whether the behavior , experience or identity of trans people is right or wrong - that's a big leap from saying "we should just apply fair, critical thought when considering and discussing trans issues". This lib-idpol strawman where everything a trans person says (as mediated by media outlets, facebook posts, 13 yr olds on tumblr etc) should be accepted uncritically is not real. Should we be critically engaging with trans issues? Of course. Same with any group, the prole, races, nationalities etc. the individual's narrative around what their group experiences or desires is subject to being twisted into the terms and values of conventional society. I could post an article about a worker saying "fuck universal healthcare I want to own people" and that wouldn't represent the desires of the entire working class or otherwise de-legitimize it as a group For instance a lot of trans narratives in mainstream media are "gender essentialist" but that's cause most of society doesn't get gender as a construct or the concept of gender abolition. Additionally Porky finds it beneficial to try an bring trans as a group into the umbrella of toxic-idpol ideology - the same way (the initially pretty radical) gay rights movement was redirected into marriage rights and corporate pride parades. Many trans are actual (or aspirational) gender abolitionists but must work within the present, material confines of how gender operates in our society. A lot of trans people also don't believe in defining trans identities around medical treatment or diagnosis, a lot of them can even understand the roots of some TERF arguments as real issues but with misguided conclusions. Also tbh I think like 90% of trans people I know (a large number) are either on the left edge of lib or are very active MLM/ generally anti-cap- which may be a social bubble bias- but idk something being outgrouped from mainstream capitalist values is a potentially potent radicalizer. Basically- yes there are aspects of mainstream trans narrative that suck, a lot of individuals or organizations in any group have wack views and we can critically engage in those discussions. We can do that at the same time as respectfully letting trans people live their goddamn lives with dignity and allowing them the right to treatment that makes their lives better like anyone else might for their depression or fused joints or bunions or whatever. And also shut up about it, can we please shut up about it.
>>4255 The issue isn't that everyone believes anything any trans person says, but specifically that self-diagnosis is sufficient. And that appears to be true, and a problem not worth shutting up about.
>>4262 >self-diagnosis is sufficient do you think doctors probe your skull if you claim that you're depressed? or that you're schizophrenic? or that you have a simple fucking headache? self-diagnosis is common dummy
>>4266 Yes, but a doctor could recognize and tell you that you're faking it -- not allowed or possible with gender dysphoria. Also, don't be naive, the incentive structures are totally different.
>>2752 Fascism was a problem before kalyx sold the site. I would know; I was on the modteam from 2015 to 2017.
>>4267 >Not allowed or possible with gender dysphoria <I get my knowledge on topics from infographics on image boards and twitter posts rather than hard research Getting a formal gender diagnosis to start any kind of medical treatment in most of the Western world is a protracted and difficult process even for an adult, for example an adult in the UK looking to get diagnosed will have to get referred to a specialist by their gp, see the specialist, see a different specialist for a second psychiatric opinion, then see the first specialist then they get to start looking at treatment, all of the above doctors and psychs will grill the person on their "progress" and "proof" so far before allowing them to progress to the next stage and generally actively discourage people in anyway they can and have been known to demand ridicolous standards of proof like being to walk through town in a summer dress while still hormonally male before being allowed to look at hormone treatment, the systems in most of mainland Europe are similar (in the UK and many other countries this takes years by the way, generally around 2 years in the UK from referral to first appointment then another 1.5 years for the second and third + time for an endo, or thousands of pounds if going private) The USA is actually ahead of Europe in some states in this regard, with informed consent being allowed in some areas where you have a few meetings with a doctor to talk through the process, the risks and expected changes and are required to continually affirm that you want to do this and know what you're doing before starting treatment, without having to meet random, not medically based proof standards put in place for political reasons, shockingly, despite this laxer standard of "evidence" US detrans rates are not significantly different to other 1st world nations with similar levels of discrimination Of course, your next point will be that this is correct because the effects of transitioning when you don't actually want to would be extreme, and they are, which is why the occasional idiot that orders stuff online immediately without exploring their feelings first generally immediately stops around the 3 month mark when the first very minor emotional and mental changes become evident and extreme dysphoria sets in overnight, no confused teenage girl is going to still be confused when they wake up with ever so slightly more than peach fuzz for the first time and notice they think a lot more aggresively for some reason, no confused boy is going to still be confused when he notices his emotional response to things changing dramatically and that his eyes suddenly seem a bit too big for his head, fortunately for those idiots, these changes are minor and are imminently reversable by simply stopping treatment Contrast with the approach to treating depression in near every western country, which is generally a 15 minute talk with a doctor then straight on the anti-depressants you go, but no, the 40 something woman you follow on twitter is right, Gender dysphoria is treated with far less rigour than depression is Nice "Technology" thread by the way, screeching little reactionary weasle
(160.65 KB 1334x1000 e7JYtrM.png)
>>4279 From what I heard, the UK is better off than other countries. Other than that, I can't say much about your claims, beyond these two points: 1. It's obviously not enough, because the patients are given up on and are transitioned! 2. What side are trans activists on? Protecting the patients or making transitions quicker? I think everyone knows that they lean to the latter. And listening to the lived experiences of detranstioners, we know that there are loop-holes in place to avoid the necessary precautions. > Nice "Technology" thread by the way, screeching little reactionary weasle So I disagree with the ideas of trans activists -- I expressly don't want trans people to be harmed, made fun of, let alone killed -- and that's enough to make me a reactionary? I agree with everything, except this one point (and that on a theoretical basis), and even this point is argued, on the basis of materialist beliefs, without any moralism. I argue it out polity, while trying my best to respectfully help whoever I'm talking to understand my point of view -- and and that's "screeching". That's exactly the problem, and the issue why OPs wish for a leftist tech community won't work, and why it shouldn't be desired. You'll be left with the most unlikable group of dogmatists and contrarians imaginable, as the reddits have proven. All it takes is a minor disagreement, the thought "Wait, that's not quite right", and you'll see what I'm talking about.
(49.87 KB 960x784 cmon man.jpg)
>>4229 You still ignore this, do you want to put them in mental hospitals? Pump them full of anti-psychotics? Just therapy? You clearly consider surgery a cardinal sin so as a society that is off the table for you. Again this is an anonymous imageboard, if you want to gas them because you're scared of them, just say it. I understand you have an issue with (what you believe to be) the trans narrative, and I'm not here to defend the narrative that you have imagined, but to defend regular trans people and seek the abolition of a gender divide in the same way I seek to abolish any notion of race. In this present day however, ignoring race would be a huge failure. It is the source of immeasurable injustice in the US alone, and the revolutionary potential it holds is crazy. >The point is that these genders were never means of "self expression", but of oppression Same could be said with race. I don't expect a black person to stop thinking of themselves as black, since it is important in the oppression that they face. Same goes for gender. Transgenderism as we know it is a product of modern society, but has seeds in previous cultures since every recent culture has had gender roles and expectations (again, read Origin of the Family by Engels). >It would be nice if that were the case, but "just call us by our names" has in my experience just been the timid excuse to make any opposition to transgender demands seem evil. So please elaborate, what do they want you to do? Rather than call them by a different name. What causes you to feel uncomfortable? >Do you have any examples? Just from my experience of the current generation, middle aged people are usually bourgeois feminists who want to protect the position women have in society and protect the tiny gains they have made since gaining the vote (of course this means defending bourgeois rights like being forced to get a job and raise a family at the same time). The current generation however seems more keen to tear these systems down. >You insist that I frame this like a nazi who wants to solve the jewish question If someone asked me as a leftist what I wish to do with all the Jewish bourgeoisie I would tell you: the same treatment coming to any bourgeoisie. In a similar way I want you to answer how you wish to solve the transgender-question. Considering you are so against surgery, you should have a few ideas for alternative effective treatment. >The doctor is meant to believe people Like other people have said in this thread that is exactly what happens. A patient goes in, says they are feeling sad, the doctor asks about symptoms, then prescribes the best treatment for the situation. The exact same shit happens with trans people, they feel uncomfortable in their skin, the doctor can determine if it is anxiety, or gender-issues, then it may need treatment, it may not. Every case is different, and this is exactly why doctors exist. >Transphobia >Fear or hatred of trans people It is the trans equivalent of homophobia, or Islamophobia, or antisemitism. It isn't just being 'scared' of them (what a vague term...), it may stem from a fear, a fear of the new and changing world, but transphobia forms in a hatred of the people. People are scared of Muslims bombing them, but Islamophobia embodies more than that, as we all know. >Fine, then a finger, or just it's tip. How about an ear or an eye? Yes what about these? I am dismissing the question, you are moralising random parts of the body as valuable. Obviously all surgeries are dangerous by nature, but so is every time you get in a car. What is *bad* about the removal of a penis? If the person hates the penis, and knows they won't use it, then what is the problem in any way, shape or form? Removing a leg, eye, or even finger, has greater consequences for the daily life of the individual. But if someone really wanted their finger gone, who are you to try stop them? >>4255 Great post. This new generation of trans people is more casual than the SJW fat, pink haired women, and less gate-keeping than your bourgeois feminist.
>>4267 Why would they fake gender dysphoria? Why would they fake an illness for 7 years just to get their genitals removed, if they didn't ACTUALLY want them removed? If you're gonna post something about 'so they can go into women's bathrooms' please go outside and get outside your propaganda bubble. But AGAIN why is any of this a problem? People won't just roll with this >>4279 process for years unless they are actual trans, and have something to gain from the treatment. If they do have something to gain from the treatment, then why do you have an issue with it? Like I have said many times, they have a right (like depressed people), to a treatment that alleviates their symptoms. It has been determined that hormones, and sometimes surgery, are the most effective treatments. If you want to stop these, you need to actually solve the root of the problems, which is in our gendered society. Which comes back to destroying capitalism, so this isn't worth any more consideration since you have been left with one option, to join the revolution with our trans comrades! >>4300 >making transitions quicker The current time span is several years, according to your own sources. How fast do you think they want this to be? Weeks? Days? I think any level headed trans person would say that that is rather silly, to get reassignment like one gets paracetamol. > >>4279 From what I heard, the UK is better off than other countries. Other than that, I can't say much about your claims, beyond these two points: 1. It's obviously not enough, because the patients are given up on and are transitioned! 2. What side are trans activists on? Protecting the patients or making transitions quicker? I think everyone knows that they lean to the latter. And listening to the lived experiences of detranstioners, we know that there are loop-holes in place to avoid the necessary precautions. > Nice "Technology" thread by the way, screeching little reactionary weasle So I disagree with the ideas of trans activists No, you are scared of trans people, as you have admitted. And you don't want them to get the treatment that is proven to help them the most, so you are an enemy to the average trans person. I disagree with women-activists, since I know their problem can only be sovled truly with socialism, that doesn't mean I stand against the movement. To stand against black people would be to side with the bourgeoisie at a moment like this, and we should only side with the bourgeoisie when they are crushing reactionaries. However, trans people, victims of society, as we have agreed (they are vulnerable people), are not deserving of this oppression. >I argue it out polity, while trying my best to respectfully help whoever I'm talking to understand my point of view -- and and that's "screeching". >That's exactly the problem, and the issue why OPs wish for a leftist tech community won't work, and why it shouldn't be desired. You'll be left with the most unlikable group of dogmatists and contrarians imaginable, as the reddits have proven. Don't find your leftist community on reddit, and don't find it with anyone who is saturated with propaganda. Apart from that, it is our job as leftists to critique everything, so this discussion is important. But I could "politely" discuss national socialism, in fact nazis I debate with love this appeal to civility, as if it makes their argument any stronger. Sorry, but it doesn't. Still you moralize about "body mutilation", which isn't actually bad. Why do you want to protect a "tiny fraction of the population" from some body modifications? Something that has existed in various forms for millions of years. You still haven't supplied a solid argument for how this is bad >it's not effective Yes it is, it is the most effective thing we have FOR THE PEOPLE THAT DESIRE IT. People that are happy with pills just have pills. It is called top and bottom surgery, for breasts and genitals respectively, some require both, some require none. This is for the medical professional to help them decide. It is not forced on them, there is no cabal of doctors forcing people to remove their breasts. >depression after surgery Could it be that trans people 'scare' people like yourself? Could it possibly be that no one understands them, which leads parents to disown them, for them to lose their jobs, to become homeless (since the trans homelessness rate is insanely high for this very reason). They are proles and they need our support. Our support shouldn't come in the form of >No you can't chop that body part off because... urm... that's bad! And you brush off my comments about how spiritual this is, but it is spiritual. It is supremely spooked. You attack a whole group of people under the pretense that the operation 'puts them in unnecessary danger', this is you clutching at straws. Finally >a lot of people default to thinking/assuming that any opposition to the trans worldview is based in a hatred or an urge to destroy them. I don't think this by default, but you have avoided the key question repeatedly of how we should treat trans people, and ignored all the comparisons I have made towards gay people by saying "gay and gender different, because they obviously are!". Your argument just isn't as materialist, or as solid as you may have thought. It's not that the rest of the world is indoctrinated. If doctors and trans people deem surgery the best option to alleviate their mental problems, who are you to tell them no? The only reason you've supplied is that 'surgery is dangerous', which barely deserves a response under how flimsy it is. Like >>4279 says in his penultimate paragraph, you would find far more success marching against the state of depression in western society. Since it is insanely more widespread, more diagnosed, and drugs distributed far more easy.
>>4301 As explained in >>4300, therapy should attempt to find the cause of "gender dysphoria", and deal with that, helping people to accept themselves. It's really just that, again, why is that so hard to believe? > In this present day however, ignoring race would be a huge failure. Totally agree, but race and gender are treated differently, as they are different concepts too ("race", liberally speaking, and sex are biological, gender is a social cateogry) Trans-race conversations are another example. Blackface is (rightfully) recognized as harmful, while drag is woke. I want the attitude towards gender to be the same as towards race, and until now, the only people I have found with that position are radical feminists. > So please elaborate, what do they want you to do? They propagate a false understanding of gender, as mentioned before, which is my main issue. My personal discomfort is irrelevant. > In a similar way I want you to answer how you wish to solve the transgender-question. There's no question, I reject the question. I reject their categories and their framework as unsound, and don't trust reasoning within said framework. > It isn't just being 'scared' of them (what a vague term...), Ok, in my case it's just disgust, but as I said, this is irrelevant. I separate this personal disgust/fear/whatever from my analysis. An argument is an argument, regardless of who presents it, your inclinations just make it harder or easier to accept the logical consequence. > Why would they fake gender dysphoria? You dismissing the danger to women shown by the current trans narrative doesn't make it less real. Following is currently taken to be true: 1. A woman is someone who belies she is a woman 2. Sex doesn't influence gender 3. A person who claims they are trans, are trans, no matter what anyone else says You famously don't need an analysis, don't need therapy, don't need anything beyond point 1. to be accepted by your trans sisters. No 7 years of waiting, no chaining anything about yourself. And then this happens: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/women-only-rape-relief-shelter-defunded-then-vandalized/ https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate Medical procedures are one thing, but that just protects honest individuals. The system pushed for by activists wants to liberalize the way to "womanhood" so that, intentionally or accidentally, malicious actors can abuse it. > get outside your propaganda bubble I formulated my stances by being in the presence of trans people. I saw their arguments, their believes, their complaints and wishes. I saw their bubble, their nonchalance when threatening people they disliked (https://terfisaslur.com/) the way they dominate LGBT discussions, the personalities they attract. Reality is the best propaganda. > Still you moralize about "body mutilation", which isn't actually bad. I apologize for that, this discussion is just at times somewhat infuriating, when I have to repeat myself again and again, and defend my position against formulaic attacks that have nothing to do what I'm saying. Part of the problem, generally speaking, is that large parts of the media are pressured to be one-sided. That's why there is a disproportional over-coverage of trans-critical topics on conservatives sites, than on liberal ones (that's disregarding fringe media). In my time with the "TERF"s, I noticed that this annoyed them too, and they had to fight of naive conservatives that believed they were on the same side. Inadvertently, the conservative languages rubs off on people, even if I don't want it to be the case, so I thank you for calling me out on that. I know if I want to free the left from this dogma, I cannot to it with the wrong terms. > Yes it is, it is the most effective thing we have FOR THE PEOPLE THAT DESIRE IT. You wanting something, is no argument in itself. They are in fragile positions, close to mental breakdowns and suicide, and this is channeled through the language of "gender dysphoria". It would be naive to take their words literally. > Could it be that trans people 'scare' people like yourself? Again, personally I think it is a mistake, and when I see sites like https://turn-me-into-a-girl.com/ or horrible subreddits like /r/egg_irl, 40 year old men "suddenly" realizing they are "girls" (not women), leaving their families, I find it hard to sympathies with the movement. But again, my views are irrelevant. > but you have avoided the key question repeatedly of how we should treat trans people I very kindly ask you to please accept my answer, the same answer I have given you multiple times over. I don't know if this is a game, where you selectively ignore things I say, or if I am unable to express myself, but please just take my word. This is an anonymous image board, I don't have a reason to lie.
STFU about trans shit or risk the ban hammer. last warning.
>>1930 HackerNews is the fucking worst community. I know someone who is reactionary-lite, and constantly talks about how terrible reddit is (no shit) so he moved to HackerNews because it's a more "sensible, non-biased" community. a community that consists of libertarian incels that make 200k a year bitching constantly about minorities/shit that does not affect them. cringe. i think this board is the closest thing to what OP is looking for, but after seeing the massive walls of text over completely unrelated shit further down this thread, i'm not so sure.
>>4757 How can they not have sex with 200k a year?
>>4757 Its one fucking nut going on about spooky minorities and drawing in unrelated people trying to argue with him, as usual Level One Techs forums are pretty good, especially for learning about Cloud Stuff, I also like their news round ups >>4758 Go there and read their shit lmao and you'll understand
>>4757 I agree about hacker news. I'd say they are a mix of steven pinker (neo-)liberals and "rational" libertarians. Interestingly, I saw a comment on hacker news saying that "if I wanted to know that vaccines cause autism, [other fake conspiracies theories], I'd go to reddit, not here", implying reddit is a schizo asylum. Interesting because I assumed reddit was mostly a liberal le I fucking love science circle jerk. I mentioned it before, https://lobste.rs is the only tech news site I can tolerate, besides the subreddits of specific technology, eg r/haskell, etc. Tech, as it exists now, is tied to politics and to capitalism more generally, you can't really escape that, so you'll occasionally see bad takes. I saw that lemmy shit but I'm just so burnt from reddit that seeing the interface gave me PTSD.
>>3368 links to these studies?
>>4267 >Yes, but a doctor could recognize and tell you that you're faking it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
>>4279 >his eyes suddenly seem a bit too big for his head You watch too much anime if you think estrogen makes your eyes bigger.
>>4305 >Blackface is (rightfully) recognized as harmful, while drag is woke. I want the attitude towards gender to be the same as towards race, and until now, the only people I have found with that position are radical feminists. >i want to abolish gender but drag is bad mmmkay
>>4882 <seem Facial changes make the eyes seem slightly larger Anyway, we're supposed to stop screeching about gender, talk about this shit in /IncelG/ with all the other real leftist do nothings, not on tech
another solid thread ruined by derailing autists
(368.36 KB 931x720 laughs-menacingly.jpg)
Here's to getting banned: https://www.ovarit.com/o/ThisNeverHappens/ >>4883 >>i want to abolish gender but drag is bad mmmkay >wanting to reinforce gender stereotypes >>4890 It's horrible how annoying TRAs are, right?

Delete
Report

no cookies?