Any more evidence needed that TRA movement is just misogynistic MRA movement?

submitted by VioletRemi from i.imgur.com

all 25 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]VioletRemi[S] 40 insightful - 6 fun40 insightful - 5 fun41 insightful - 6 fun -  (12 children)

Being female is just a clothing to wear. Any more misogynistic claim there can be done?

Gender non-confirming men, who are not claiming to be women, are danger to transwomen because then transwomen have no way to show that they are women? Really? How does anyone see this and do not realize how sexist this is and how it hurts both women and GNC men?

So if transwoman have sex without cloths with a man, then it is homosexual sex, but if sex is in cloths it is "heterosexual" sex? How does that even work?

[–]VioletRemi[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Archive of article in question: https://archive.is/c4QsR (archive to not give clicks).

When he rebranded himself as "non-binary", there was different article, that now he is a saviour of trans people: https://archive.is/ph3wP

However, all points are still valid. Being GNC man without calling yourself non-binary or trans - is "threat to trans".

[–]VioletRemi[S] 14 insightful - 8 fun14 insightful - 7 fun15 insightful - 8 fun -  (9 children)

Bonus quote: https://i.imgur.com/exIWSpi.png

"Most important thing is thinking about your gender whole day"

[–]MarkTwainiac 19 insightful - 4 fun19 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

Actually, it's

The most important thing you have to do all day is tell the world what your gender is

Yeah, I imagine that all the hundreds of millions of people who live in abject poverty - entire families living in a single mud-floored room with no clean running water, reliable electricity, toilets or mirrors - and whose costume choices consist of just the clothes on their backs that they wear as they try to eke out a subsistence living are really in agreement that

The most important thing you have to do all day is tell the world what your gender is

Talk about the privilege and cluelessness of first-world gender-ideologue narcissists! Do these people not know that half the world's population lives on less than $5.50 USD a day? Have these genderist numpties never traveled anywhere? Or even watched a documentary or read a book or magazine article about how the less fortunate of the world live even today?

BTW, the first archive link didn't work for me. Is this a new piece in the Independent?

[–]Monchichi 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What a luxury to have nothing else to be worried about in life other than if people will go along with your gender-fantasies or not.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

BTW, whilst writing my earlier comment, the movie "Cast Away" started on my TV screen... Interestingly, in his efforts to stay alive, human and not go totally insane whilst marooned in who-knows-where, the character played by Tom Hanks never once mentioned nor seemed to consider his "gender."

He was heartbroken, however, when his imaginary friend "Wilson" was taken by the seas. But that had nothing to do with "gender" or "gender identity" or any of the crap the regressive genderists spout.

[–]Femaleisnthateful 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Your comment made me think of how many 'news' articles I've seen throughout the pandemic bemoaning how difficult it was to be trans during the pandemic because of difficulties accessing exogenous hormones and surgeries, and what if they died and were buries as a person of their birth sex, etc.

I truly wonder what would happen to this population if they were in a real crisis where they had to truly prioritize their survival, and not just their gender identity.

[–]MarkTwainiac 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seems to me none of the gender ideologues have the mettle, pain-tolerance or resilience to cope with a real crisis or withstand genuine suffering. These are people who regard getting side-eye and being "misgendered" as a threat to/denial of their existence.

The only way than they can think of to cope with a genuine threat to their survival would be to lash out verbally and violently - which might work if the threat is coming from violent persons or animals, but won't be of much help in the event of a fire, tsunami, famine, total economic collapse, plane crash, Ebola breakout, utter destitution, becoming life-threateningly ill with something like bone or pancreatic cancer, becoming physically crippled by accident or a disease like MS or ALS, being sent to a place like the Gulag or Guantánamo, living under regimes like the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, Franco's Spain or Romania under Ceauşescu, etc.

Frankly, I think these "folx" would probably fall apart if their internet service were interrupted. That's about the greatest tragedy they seem capable of surviving. A bout of shingles would be a bridge too far.

[–]VioletRemi[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

how hard

And almost no news about 3-5 times increased rates of Domestic Violence, about increased amount of women running out of home with kids, increased amount of women and kids dying from domestic violence, strongly increased amount of rape cases.

But "harder to buy estrogen and need 2 more hours than usually" is discussed and "so bad! Poor transes!".

and if they died

Yet 0 deaths of trans people this year so far in Europe. And no homicides either. They attacked or killed more women during this time, than being targeted themselves.

[–]ExecuteHomophobes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

BTW, whilst writing my earlier comment, the movie "Cast Away" started on my TV screen... Interestingly, in his efforts to stay alive, human and not go totally insane whilst marooned in who-knows-where, the character played by Tom Hanks never once mentioned nor seemed to consider his "gender."

No, that was Bosom Buddies.

[–]ColoredTwice 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jaden Smith as a new face of womenswear might seem progressive - but he's on transgender territory

Year 2016.

[–]BrendaFricker 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it was really about the drive to reproduce, they'd be talking about sex, not gender.

[–]VioletRemi[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And another one!

https://twitter.com/carlos_/status/1331207578890735619

[–]Monchichi 28 insightful - 1 fun28 insightful - 0 fun29 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Women's clothes do not make you a woman. Women don't need dresses to display their gender identity, why would men? A woman in pants is no less of a woman. If a TiM has to wear a dress to seem womanly, maybe that says a thing or two about whether they're innately women or not (hint: they're not).
Women's clothes or women's lives are not trans territory. All this is so gross.

[–]Marigold-plate 21 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Dear Independent, I hope you keep publishing trans voices. The world really needs to hear trans views from their own words. Secondhand accounts are not believed. Next, please have a trans writer describe how you don’t need gender dysphoria to legally identify as trans. It

[–]grixit 16 insightful - 4 fun16 insightful - 3 fun17 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Yup, transcritters aren't safe as long as those scottish army units are around. Or those greek folkdancers. Or arab businessmen. Or hula men. Or west african traditionalists. Or priests and monks of various religions.

[–]SkinnyVanilla 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

None of those are really relevant because they're not traditional women's garb.

[–]grixit 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They're dresses and skirts by any other name.

[–]Femaleisnthateful 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Funny, it sounds like the author is claiming that they are co-opting a female identity because the meaning of 'male' is not inclusive enough of gender non-conforming males. It's like they said the quiet part loud. Women's clothes = 'trans uniform". Puke.

[–]VioletRemi[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, "woman" is not a person, "woman" is not a living human being, woman is just a "uniform", a mask you wear and can remove whenever you want. All sexism is only because of women's stubbornness of not wanting to remove that "uniform"!

[–]arcticbasket 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Women's clothes = 'trans uniform".

It's more like women's clothes = "trans costume".

They're all just playing dress up.

[–]Shesstealthy 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody tell these kids about the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s. FFS.

For what it's worth TW, I use the presence of a bra to determine whether an obvious male in feminine attire wants me to use "she".

[–]LeaveAmsgAfterBeep 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have said it before: typically the most anti GNC are trans/NB themselves.

[–]blackrainbow 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Men in dresses

[–]justasking918273 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

More like men in dresses pretending to be women feeling threatened by men in dresses that do not pretend that they are women. It's absolutely nuts. Reminds me of this awful article.