Of Course She Does

DogeWalker · 2020-12-05T13:55:26+00:00

almost like Breitbart and co. are more interested in hating on anything Pelosi does, rather than actually reporting on the trans students issues..... weird

DogeWalker · 2020-12-05T12:54:14+00:00

Lmao...

DogeWalker · 2020-10-19T21:49:40+00:00

I won't mention her alias here or link to the Youtube video... This is just one example of overt homophobia...

What is one example? You could be making that up for all we know. What video or channel are you talking about?

DogeWalker · 2020-10-19T21:18:42+00:00

I know there are people who would not mind being pressured in that way, but why pick only one part of my comment to respond to?

DogeWalker · 2020-10-19T15:18:46+00:00

Did you read the comments on Ovarit? I think the one at the top sums up the issue at hand:

"Friendly reminder" or "just a reminder" is newspeak for authoritarian brainwashing incoming: comply or be harassed.

It's simply a little bit disturbing to require this sort of approval from any group, and it's even more insulting to people who are exclusively same-sex attracted.

Imagine being a straight man and having gay men repeatedly insist, "It's fine if you choose not to date another man!" Frankly, I find it hard to imagine that happening... because no one is telling straight men that they are "allowed" to not kiss other men if they don't want to. (It's simply assumed that straight men would never be interested in that, so nobody feels the need to explain that they have "permission.")

If that's too much to imagine, then think of going on a first date with someone, and at the beginning of the date, the person says: "Look, it's totally fine if you don't want to fuck me tonight, so don't worry... I won't tell everyone that you are a monster of a person if you don't fuck me tonight, right after this date. So we good?"

Do you feel comfortable after that? Would you feel relieved for the rest of the night, or would you find the insistence off-putting and a bit weird?

DogeWalker · 2020-10-16T16:33:47+00:00

women are also the majority of those who are questioning extreme trans activism, wouldn't you agree? I think that's an interesting corollary.

DogeWalker · 2020-08-20T23:14:35+00:00

You don't get to police how another woman chooses to celebrate her sexuality.

I think "policing" implies actually having some control, and I don't think a post with 25 comments can exert any control over how any woman, let alone Cardi B, chooses to celebrate her sexuality.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T17:10:27+00:00

How is a tractor different from the eye of a completely blind human? What makes the tractor not an eye? Because the eye of a completely blind human can not see things, but is still an eye, if we plow the fields with it, it's still an eye. Why is the tractor any different from the plucked out eye of a blind human that can not function as much as the tractor can not function?

Answering these questions will definitely convince me otherwise

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T16:32:49+00:00

I believe a neoeye is an eye, but if I'm wrong and it isn't an eye, then please convince me of why that is

No, I'm not going to try and convince you. If you honestly believe that anything called an eyeball is an eyeball, then I am not sure what could convince you otherwise.

ETA: If I am wrong and anything called an eyeball is an eyeball, then please convince me of why that is.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T16:28:35+00:00

Yes, I was on the debate sub on reddit for not quite a year. Picked a new username here, just because paranoia seems to be trendy here on saidit ;)

It really saddens me to know that young girls like we were are being encouraged to disconnect themselves from womanhood. So many kids think they're the only GNC person in the world, and now when they are finally old enough to find their tribe, they find that the tribe has disappeared.

I know what you mean. Based on my own experiences, I completely understand those stats about ROGD and how it's disproportionately affecting girls and young women... there's so much pressure to conform on one hand, and now on the other, there's extreme trans activism telling you to just abandon womanhood.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T16:19:28+00:00

Thanks, but I already understand that SRS and reconstructive surgery aren't the same thing. That's why it's merely an analogy... it is somewhat similar, in that an organ is being assembled from different tissue. If you have a better, more apt analogy, let's hear it.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T16:15:42+00:00

My response can be found in the identical thread at s/GCdebatesQT .

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T16:14:43+00:00

So you agree that my neoeye is an eye, then?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T15:49:21+00:00

Hypothetically, let's say I lost an eyeball in a tragic basketweaving accident.

Doctors offer to create a replacement eyeball for me, using soft tissue from my forearm.

My replacement eyeball is literally an eyeball. Do you agree, u/GarageCar ?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T15:45:29+00:00

Hypothetically, let's say I lost an eyeball in a tragic basketweaving accident.

Doctors offer to create a replacement eyeball for me, using soft tissue from my forearm.

My replacement eyeball is literally an eyeball. Do you agree, OP?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T15:13:44+00:00

Spot on. I almost made a follow up comment asking if being anti-porn is what they meant. It certainly takes a galaxy brain to think being against porn is directly equivalent to being anti- freedom of speech.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-18T02:04:59+00:00

Yes, this is a good description for a lot of my experiences, as well.

When I was young, I didn't look down on girls, at least not consciously. But I definitely had it in my mind that I was not really one of them.

Definitely this. Despite feeling strongly distanced from womanhood and other women, I used to feel that it was mutual in some way, like an unspoken pact... Like, let me consign myself to the "androgynous oddball" space over here, and not try to align myself with womanhood at all, in order to avoid bothering the "normal" women who better fit the mold of "real" womanhood.

It was really only after finding GC thought that I fully accepted that I am a woman with no qualifications. And even now, the word "woman" sometimes puts me a little on edge. I still want to distance myself from other women, even though I know it's not healthy. I'm sure it will be a lifelong struggle.

Same. I re-discovered radical feminism and really re-identified myself with womanhood a couple years ago. But I am still quite masculine in appearance, so for that and other reasons, I struggle with that feeling of being distanced. It probably will be a lifelong thing, but it's a boost to know I'm not the only one.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-17T18:08:31+00:00

I'm certain that we'll get a reply...

DogeWalker · 2020-07-17T16:37:35+00:00

But the patterns take so many different forms, I do not believe we can make generalizations so easily. I mean, foot binding was a pattern in medieval China.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-17T15:38:13+00:00

But what about the "inward out" expression? I'm talking about this part:

Now you could argue that the expression becomes meaningless if the roles didn't exist. Yes, but that would also mean that patterns in human behavior don't exist, as expression, since it's inward out, could still relate to these patterns.

If gender roles are imposed from the outside, then the argument you propose makes perfect sense: inward-out gender expressions would lose meaning if not moored to the imposed gender roles. I asked for help understanding because it seemed to me that you go against that argument in the next sentence ("Yes, but...")

DogeWalker · 2020-07-17T14:33:14+00:00

Great question. As a butch lesbian, I had to work through and move past the "not like the other girls" mindset that is heavily promoted by gender ideology.

I think it's hard to avoid feeling "NLOG" as a butch, or as any gender non-conforming woman for that matter. It's a coping mechanism for feeling so different and freakish... but it's also a badge of honor, in a way. Of course, it's a toxic mindset because it creates artificial divisions among women. It also, ironically, reinforces the idea that there is a correct way to be a woman, or that a woman who doesn't conform to gender roles is somehow unique or different from other women... and it is subtly derogatory toward other women who are not "special" as in GNC.

I myself spent many years as unthinkingly pro-trans... but eventually I started to feel out of place in LGBT circles, because so many other butch/GNC women ended up transitioning or taking on elaborate nonbinary identities, and I definitely felt pressure to do the same. I just wanted to be me.

So it was a real relief when I discovered gender criticism and re-discovered radical feminism. It was like I had permission to just be me again, knowing that I am 100% female because I simply am. I was able to let go of the resentfulness towards other, "normal" women, and move past the NLOG mindset. We are all women because we simply are. It's possible to be 100% female and 100% handsome at the same time... without the complicated identities or labels from gender ideology.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-17T14:05:52+00:00

More confusion than harm. I don't think TQ's impact on language as a whole has been as large as it seems in some corners of the internet.

But, saying that, I think the most harm is being done to TQ and TQ-aligned young people, who are repeating back the chants and mantras without thinking... they are in for a rude awakening as they realize the mindset of "words dont have to mean things if you dont feel like it uwu" is incompatible with reality.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-17T14:00:00+00:00

I'm certain that Mackinnon and Dworkin wrote that censorship was required to protect women's speech

Can you point me to the passages or texts where they said this? I would like to learn more.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-17T13:55:55+00:00

Prediction:

terfs won't join it... but terfs will leave it.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-17T01:39:11+00:00

Another great historical perspective on this is Janice Raymond's book The Transsexual Empire, published 1979. The full pdf is available on her website: https://janiceraymond.com/

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T16:30:00+00:00

I am confused in any case, what are GCs' counters to those TQ arguments?

What are the TQ arguments, beyond the claim that "Man and woman are gender roles"? I don't see any reasoning beyond that. Maybe I missed some context.

My GC response to "Man and woman are gender roles" is that I disagree. I'm a native English speaker, and throughout my life, I have always heard the words woman and man used according to a person's sex. If there is evidence that those words mean "gender roles," I would very much like to see it and learn from it.

Q1) Do male and female refer to both "gender" and sex? Why can't words such as "male"/"man" and "female"/"woman" refer to both "gender" as well as one's sex?

Well, why can't words such as "male"/"man" and "female"/"woman" refer to both "salary earnings potential" as well as one's sex? I see no reason why that wouldn't work, do you?

Q2) Why can't the words man and woman be defined as something other than "adult human male" and "adult human female"?

I don't understand this question, so I pose another question in hopes of illuminating my understanding:

Why can't the word "truth" be defined as something other than conformity to fact, reality, or actuality?

I could also respond: there is no real reason why the word "woman" can't mean "male person," just as there is no real reason why the word "truth" can't mean "ice cream." So, I accept that the words woman and man can mean those things, exactly the same as the word "truth" can mean "ice cream." Sure, why not?

Q3) One of the main TQ arguments is that men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises. Why is it false to say "vaginas/uteruses/etc can be male organs, penis/testes/etc can be female organs, men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises"?

This is the TQ argument I've never understood, because it seems to short-circuit the reason why most people transition. Here's why:

If we accept that it is true that "penis/testes/etc can be female organs", etc., then shouldn't that idea be promoted to alleviate dysphoria? There could be no feeling of the body being "wrong" if both females and males are equally likely to have a penis/testes or vulva/vagina/uterus.

So, I believe the answer to "Why is it false to say "vaginas/uteruses/etc can be male organs, penis/testes/etc can be female organs, men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises"?" is that... trans activists don't actually believe that.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T15:16:28+00:00

Brb, starting a band called Merven Maiden

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T13:36:10+00:00

I can’t stop you from believing whatever you want. Good luck again!

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T12:53:59+00:00

And I was obviously mentioning one practical way to avoid those tactics, no matter which side they come from.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T12:49:35+00:00

That's between you and censorshipment. I was only trying to get the debate sub onto more peoples' radar. (Not saying you specifically didn't know about it! Just that the comment could be viewed by others who might not be fully aware.)

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T12:42:33+00:00

How is choosing not to re-use the same usernames on every site an attitude?

I'm sorry you were offended, but I thought I was pointing out something common sense. Good luck to you in the future!

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T12:34:51+00:00

I didn't call your post a debate post, and I didn't mention any of that other stuff. I certainly didn't mention a "hidden agenda."

You talked about the importance of opinions and specifically mentioned the debate sub, so I pointed out there is a version here. That's all.

Would you like me to post a link to a comment you made on another platform, and discredit your opinion on other issues for it?

You can try if that's what you want to do.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T12:34:03+00:00

Seems it would have been impossible to link under a different name, tho...

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T12:28:41+00:00

I still don't understand what crucial facts were omitted. From what I can tell, both of our statements allude to gender, since we both mention that some people transition. Also, that was only one of two questions.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T12:22:58+00:00

Nobody forced you to register with the same username you used on reddit...

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T12:21:24+00:00

Also, if there are no ppl like me there is no point in having a GCdebateQT sub lmao.

This post is on the "main" GC saidit, s/GCdebatesQT is that way

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T04:31:13+00:00

Funny how showing """respect""" for the accused's gender identity also creates perfect clickbait headlines...

"When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T03:08:46+00:00

Interesting prompt, but I think the "QT side" is too vast and varied to have one summarizable position. I remember lots of comments on the old GCdebatesQT to that effect. I'll quickly summarize what I gathered from that sub as the most extreme facet of trans activism:

Everything is a spectrum, and no word can truly be said to have an actual definition. Anything you feel is valid, and other people should be viewed as bigoted unless they accept what you say about what you feel.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-16T02:39:47+00:00

You actually can. Expression is inward out, roles are outward in. That distinction is honestly quite important. Now you could argue that the expression becomes meaningless if the roles didn't exist. Yes, but that would also mean that patterns in human behavior don't exist, as expression, since it's inward out, could still relate to these patterns.

This sounds like an argument that gender roles are innate. If that is your belief, could you explain further?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-15T19:34:34+00:00

Thanks, once I re-visited the news story, I realized I had read an interview with Maclachlan about the incident. It's the 2nd story down in the feminist current link.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-15T13:13:47+00:00

Lol, won’t someone think of poor Tulsi Gabbard?

I don’t know what claims Weiss made about Gabbard, but it’s not exactly difficult to find sources on Tulsi. It just depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go...

Even from the top of the rabbit hole, I think most would agree that skipping over 80% of House votes is not a good look for an elected representative.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-15T12:36:01+00:00

That doesn't impart the same information. It barely imparts any useful information at all.

What information got left out?

Wouldn't the 99% include people who later transition? It doesn't sound that way though.

Yes, when I said "some people," that definitely includes people from 99% of the population. Sorry if the wording was unclear.

The action of medically transitioning doesn't change a person's gender either.

I agree, but to me, "gender" means "gender roles" or stereotypes. The action of medically transitioning doesn't change a person's religion, either. What's your point with that statement?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-15T12:07:27+00:00

I believe this is it: Radical feminist warned to refer to transgender defendant as a 'she' during assault case

I tried googling the names for more sources, and found most of the coverage to be on right-wing blogs, daily mail, etc... so good luck finding more citations.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-15T12:00:07+00:00

Everyone is born non-binary. Non-binary people who are female transition socially & biologically into women. This means that all "cis-women" are actually trans-women, while "cis-men" & "trans-women" are actually trans-men.

Here's my interpretation, for comparison:

The vast majority (over 99%) of people are accurately observed to be either female or male. Some people take artificial hormones or undergo genital surgeries, but those actions do not change the person's sex.

Which is more clear?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-15T11:50:07+00:00

I feel the same. It's obvious that the dynamic will be different. I understand why people don't want to join this site... I don't like it either, but at this point I am not sure it's that much worse than reddit dot com.

I don't have a good answer, sorry. But I will repeat what I said in another comment... I think back to the multitude of accusations the pro-trans/QT side made on the old board. You know... too many downvotes are silencing us, this is a cruel echo chamber, so on, and so on.... yet, it's clear from browsing r/GenderCynical etc., that they simply retreated happily to the monotonous reverberations within their own chambers.

Maybe r/QTberatesGC would be allowed now? Nah... what am I thinking? We all know anything less than GCobeysQT is unacceptable.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T23:18:23+00:00

This is an important point... why should anyone believe that Wittig is even talking about genetics, human biology, or even science? She’s an academic philosopher, not constrained by silly things like reality.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T23:11:03+00:00

I just realized this is in the GC saidit and not s/GCdebatesQT ... I think questions like these are much better suited to the debate sub.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T23:04:58+00:00

Either she means there are no sex roles (that the roles men and women are expected to have are socially constructed), while not denying sex (male or female) exists itself,

or she means sex (male or female) does not exist, and that oppression creates sex instead of oppression being something that is caused by the sexes.

I take it you believe she meant the latter one, right? Can you expand on that, because what you wrote isn't clear to me. If she meant sex does not exist, then how does it follow that oppression creates sex? You said, "oppression creates sex instead of oppression being something that is caused by the sexes." How does that work, can you explain? Or is the first interpretation the one you think is more viable?

... she should have said...

From what I understand, English is not Wittig's first language, although she clearly knows it well enough to produce some of her works in English. In fact, it's not clear to me which of her writings were originally in French vs. English. Do you agree that the language barrier could be a reason she happened to choose the phrasing she did? I think we have to meet in the middle with authorial intent all the time.

Unless there is more evidence about what she meant, I don't see any good reason to go with the simplistic interpretation of "human sex does not exist," ... because I don't see support for that interpretation when I read the actual text she wrote.

Her thesis certainly seems more complex than "human sex does not exist." If it was that simple, why does she keep writing about women at all?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T22:37:41+00:00

The comic on that page is hilarious but I think its captions got mixed up. Two natal males having sex is yes homo... How on earth is that mental gymnastics?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T17:49:45+00:00

Every analysis of Monique Wittig I have read concludes that she says...

Well, then every analysis about Wittig is in agreement. What's wrong with focusing on the source material, Wittig's actual writing?

Once the class “men” disappears, “women” as a class will disappear as well ... For “woman” does not exist for us: it is only an imaginary formation, while “women” is the product of a social relationship.

What could this possibly mean besides "woman as a category is imaginary and doesn't exist"?

How are you getting that from those lines? I think the part you elided was crucial to that section. Here is that part in context, emphasis mine:

Once the class “men” disappears, “women” as a class will disappear as well, for there are no slaves without masters. Our first task, it seems, is to always thoroughly dissociate “women” (the class within which we fight) and “woman,” the myth. For “woman” does not exist for us:

It's clear to me that she is talking about the categorization of "women" from two different angles: mere existence as humans who happen to be female, and what she calls the myth of woman.

Why does she say, "Once the class 'men' disappears, 'women' as a class will disappear as well"?

Is it because she envisions a future that is a literal gray jumpsuit dystopia, where all humans are literally, completely, physically identical?

Or, is she talking about the current state of the world, where the simple "mere existence" sex categories are all tangled up with social norms and stereotypes?

To me, that line is about the way women are only defined as "other," or defined as not-men. She's saying that, if we could get beyond that entanglement, then those social meanings would fall away or disappear.

ETA: I see the added part about The Category of Sex now. What do you make of this part specifically? Again, emphasis added by me.

Furthermore, the divisions are abstracted and turned into concepts by the masters… for there is no sex. There is but sex that is oppressed and sex that oppresses. It is the oppression that creates sex and not the contrary.

Edit 2: typo fix.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T17:29:07+00:00

I have to hope that the majority are more jobless than they are wicked, lol.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T17:28:02+00:00

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T17:24:11+00:00

Wittig spends a lot of time in that essay talking about "the myth of woman." I think it's easy to read different meanings into her words, not unlike the famous Simone de Beauvoir quote that Wittig references in her essay. If people interpret de Beauvoir as saying women are literally constructed... then that's up to them.

For instance, I found this part of the essay more in-depth and illuminating. (emphasis mine)

Thus it is our historical task, and only ours, to “define what we call oppression in materialist terms, to make it evident that women are a class, which is to say that the category “woman” as well as the category “man” are political and economic categories not eternal ones. Our fight aims to suppress men as a class, not through a genocidal, but a political struggle. Once the class “men” disappears, “women” as a class will disappear as well, for there are no slaves without masters. Our first task, it seems, is to always thoroughly dissociate “women” (the class within which we fight) and “woman,” the myth. For “woman” does not exist for us: it is only an imaginary formation, while “women” is the product of a social relationship. We felt this strongly when everywhere we refused to be called a “woman’s liberation movement.”

Furthermore, we have to destroy the myth inside and outside ourselves. “Woman” is not each one of us, but the political and ideological formation which negates “women” (the product of a relation of exploitation). “Woman” is there to confuse us, to hide the reality “women.” In order to be aware of being a class and to become a class we first have to kill the myth of “woman” including its most seductive aspects (I think about Virginia Woolf when she said the first task of a woman writer is to kill “the angel in the house”).

Philosophizing doesn't really interest me, but I know enough about it to recognize that anything that sounds like a just-so soundbite ("Monique Wittig says women don't exist!!!!") probably has a lot more depth if studied closer.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T13:36:15+00:00

It's in the sidebar: this is not a debate sub. You could try s/GCdebatesQT if you want.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T13:15:46+00:00

Looks like it was deleted in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cotton_ceiling

This topic is of doubtful notability for having its own article, and it is difficult to find significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention outside the blogosphere and opinion forums. There is virtually no news coverage (NYT searches for the term turn up articles on crop prices), and the one book reference is by a kook conspiracy theorist. Not every neologism that is created and causes some furious interactions on Twitter, blogs, or forums for a while deserves its own article." I myself looked both last June and this month for sources about the topic, and didn't spot any high-quality academic sources about the topic, but only sources mentioning it, mostly in passing, while discussing other things—and as noted, the results when searching e.g. Google Books or the NYT are mostly/often about price ceilings for actual cotton. I propose that the article be deleted. (Failing that, perhaps a much condensed summary could be merged into the article Trans woman.) -sche (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so the Cotton Ceiling wikipedia article was deleted because it does not appear in academic sources, or something....

Meanwhile.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(pejorative)

ETA: Here's the deleted Cotton Ceiling wiki page: http://deletionpedia.org/en/Cotton_ceiling

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T12:41:53+00:00

Came here to say the same thing. OP you aren't a coward, you're intelligent enough to realize the present risk.

People tried to cancel J.K. Rowling, even before this year, because she Liked certain tweets. Even if you aren't that big of a celebrity, it's good to be aware that some people will watch for tiny details such as Likes and Follows.

It's a bullshit tactic designed to scare us, but you aren't cowardly just for recognizing the risk. (And in general, trusting your gut is very important -- check out The Gift of Fear book for more about that)

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T01:41:24+00:00

I wouldn't be that hard on yourself... we have to keep coming up with new ideas, so optimism is required! (btw, I also did not realize the difference between AFAB and OFAB and how it makes a difference to the intersex community, until recently)

Also, despite the details about this one idea, I think there is something very important at its center... it seems obvious that there are two human sexes, but since sex is the basis for the large-scale oppression of women, we can't forget the key importance of that, and we can't concede that ground.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T00:57:06+00:00

Of course they are born with DNA

Since you answered this, that should help resolve this question. Since you agree that DNA is present from conception... what is your argument that sex does not develop untl later?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T00:50:07+00:00

I didn't use this name on reddit, so it must be a coincidence. I don't recognize your handle from r/GCdebatesQT, did you ever participate there?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T23:41:34+00:00

it becomes more clear that it really is about biological sex and not "transphobia"

GC here. I wish something like this would work... but this logic simply won't compute with extreme TRA types. To them, being clear about biological sex is "transphobia."

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T23:38:15+00:00

Are children born with DNA? Or do we somehow lack genetic material in every cell until puberty?

It will help everyone to answer your questions if you can provide a response to that.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T23:23:07+00:00

According to the rules in the sidebar, this is not a debate sub. s/gcdebatesqt exists for that reason.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T22:14:19+00:00

You have the wrong sub for this question, u/AllInOne

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T22:07:36+00:00

u/AllInOne, are children born with DNA? Or do we somehow lack genetic material in every cell until puberty?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T21:52:11+00:00

Yes, he is the one administering the site. I think the female founder also claimed to have a tech background, so it’s unclear to me why a man should be in charge...

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T21:47:37+00:00

Ok, and I understand those concerns. I'm just coming from a position where... if we are honestly concerned about this stuff, we must think critically and rationally about it, and not have these kinds of extreme knee-jerk reactions.

If we react without thinking rationally, we're no better than those doing the cancelling.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T15:35:26+00:00

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T15:17:06+00:00

Can't miss us if you don't stop reading! :) And participating, too... no matter where the debate takes place, we could always use more voices chiming in with Passionate Intensity!

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T15:15:31+00:00

I personally don't like or understand Spinster's original decision to use the Gab platform for their site. Gab gained notoriety first as a reactionary alternative to twitter, popular with the alt-right, and the platform became notorious again when it was found that the 2018 Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter was an active Gab user. There are fediverse alternatives like Mastodon and Pleroma that seem equally viable platforms, but without that baggage. So, the decision to use Gab never sat right with me. I also think it's hypocritical that a man runs the site.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T15:06:05+00:00

Hi worried19! I think it's unfortunate but also hilarious that the QT/pro-trans are unlikely to leave their newly reinforced echo chamber on reddit... so I guess this site is the next best bet for a debate forum. (tho I don't understand why every post on s/gcdebatesqt is tagged nsfw...?) I think the debate space is very important, so I'm willing to give it a chance anywhere it can be hosted.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T15:02:04+00:00

Return question: are children born with DNA? Or do we somehow lack genetic material in every cell until puberty?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-13T13:04:54+00:00

I also condemn the extremes of "cancel culture," but I am saying that "cancel culture" is a drop in the bucket compared to real economic concerns facing everyday working people. I don't want people to get banned from twitter or to have to look for a new job... but I also want my grandma to be able to afford her daily medication. In my opinion, making "anti cancel culture" your primary political issue, is shooting ourselves in the foot regarding the more overarching issues that control people's livelihoods in the first place. It makes no sense to me to become a single-issue voter on this issue. What about poor women and their access to health care???

DogeWalker · 2020-07-12T19:40:34+00:00

Yeah, but it is possible that lesbians are saying that stuff due to what they have absorbed from gay culture. I know from attending many pride events that gay men are usually front and center of attention... is it any surprise when their predatory behaviors rub off on the crowd?

Again, not trying to make excuses, but I don't see the benefit in singling out butch lesbians like this. We are all suffering under patriarchy and now gender ideology. Finally I will add that I have seen the exact behaviors you describe in several bisexual women, so for that reason I'm inclined to believe there's nothing really special about butch lesbians, rather that the entire community has been warped by the very male-centric gender ideology.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-12T19:19:22+00:00

I think that extreme masculine behavior is worsened as a direct result of the "genderfeelz" activists.

And I am concerned about those behaviors too, but I have also watched men get a free pass for ridiculously creepy/shitty behavior over and over and over again... so it feels like a distraction to single out butch lesbians for blame here.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-12T18:56:38+00:00

I don't think a couple of weirdo lesbians being creepy is remotely comparable to all the consequences of gender ideology and extreme trans activism, no. Otherwise mostly agree.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-12T18:23:13+00:00

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Personally, my hope is that the reddit exodus has a Dandelion effect, spreading the seeds for even more spaces, because I really don't want to spend time on reactionary sites/platforms like this one. Same problem with Spinster/Gab. But that's just my opinion.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-12T17:50:34+00:00

Ask yourself this... has Donald ever done anything in the interest of the public good? Or is it obvious from hearing him speak for thirty seconds that he's completely self-absorbed and self-interested? (ETA: don't forget that this entire EO was drafted because he got upset that twitter hid one of his most outlandish posts.)

he falsely believes he can affect internet policy with executive orders. If actual law/policy changes did occur, it might backfire and actually harm our free speech rights. (Imagine if twitter became legally responsible for anything any random person tweeted... They would have to close the site entirely because of that liability. Removing liability from platforms like that is a cornerstone of free expression.)

For better or worse, the EO doesn't really change anything. Sorry, I don't think there will ever be a legal ground to "challenge" reddit on any of this. The best bet is to close your account and never go back. We have to keep moving, keep reading, keep writing and engaging with ideas wherever we can.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-12T14:39:52+00:00

Men are men.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-11T12:01:04+00:00

He should wear another, smaller, bikini bottom on the lower half of his face... Maybe that would help cover up the jaw that's strong enough to play QB in a high school football movie.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-10T22:27:18+00:00

I love Buck for speaking out on this! Having BOOMER in the display name is pretty chill too. Thanks for being an OG, Buck.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-10T22:19:13+00:00

Recent post on r/actuallesbians: "I’m leaving this subreddit - I just figured out that I’m actually a straight man and not a lesbian."

It's from a newly minted TIF, of course.

This is so heartbreaking for young lesbians. This "actually a straight man" is only following the advice of extreme trans activism, actively seeking to erase her lesbian identity and craft a new identity as "actually a straight man." :(

DogeWalker · 2020-07-10T20:40:27+00:00

The trans activists want detransitioners to use their "approved" board, so they are directing them there, instead of r/detrans. It's all about controlling the narrative.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-10T20:30:01+00:00

Out of curiosity regarding point #2, do you live in one of those liberal areas?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-10T12:25:20+00:00

Have you ever contacted your representatives? Resistbot makes it really easy.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-10T12:14:31+00:00

Ok... maybe the Democrats hav gotten worse. But have the Republicans gotten any better? I don't think so.

Both parties are beholden to corporate interests, that is for sure. But only one party is a machine purpose-built to grind up poor people at the altar of prosperity. Republicans have been pissing on poor folks since at least the days of Reagan. Republicans are equally happy to piss on poor whites as they are to piss on poor non-whites, but they have benefitted from racial divisiveness for at least 100 years.

Because this is already the dominant ideology for books, TV, movies, and media, there will be no checks.

Not trying to attack you personally, but I have to take a stand against this. There's a huge difference between TV and media being shaped by corporate interests, and having actual speech/expression curtailed by the government. Can you give some examples of the censorship you're seeing in the media? I have a hard time remembering anything that would amount to that, happening in recent memory. Just because The New L Word has 18 TIMs playing true and honest lesbians.... so what? You can find most banned books if you have an internet connection. Just don't watch wokeist TV and read instead.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-10T00:07:38+00:00

You say you won't vote for Democrat candidates because all of the people who have attacked you have also been Democratic voters. I understand that is an easy reaction, but the logic is not airtight -- your anger is not directed at the correct target, imo.

Have you ever contacted any of your representatives to say you supported them with your vote, but you have concerns about where things are headed?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-09T23:45:55+00:00

I would call that doxxing. I am not defending those actions, but at the same time, words matter. Take this thread for example. What does the Democratic party in the USA have to do with this? Are Democratic Party officials the ones participating in this doxxing?

If we want to be taken seriously about this or any other issue, we should be willing to get specific and to keep thinking critically.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-09T21:00:56+00:00

To me, "cancel culture" just means wokeists whining on the bird website that their favorite songwriter, author, youtuber, or whatever, said something that they disagree with. Don't get me wrong, I dislike cancel culture as a concept, but I don't think it's in the same realm as general free speech concerns. Do you have any examples that would help me understand how they are the same?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-09T20:58:00+00:00

Doesn't cancel culture impact celebrities, leaders, and those in powers by definition? One is "cancelled" from the sphere of tweets and pop culture. I don't see how it really impacts the everyday person.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-09T20:10:37+00:00

If “cancel culture” is your number one political issue, you must be doing great financially, lol.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-09T13:18:35+00:00

Real "I don't know how to do laundry" energy with this guy

DogeWalker · 2020-07-08T14:45:12+00:00

Why not a history book?

DogeWalker · 2020-07-08T14:34:29+00:00

In fairness, I can understand how the whole Fediverse thing can be confusing. I'm sometimes caught off-guard by seeing Gab stuff on spinster.xyz, and I'm someone with an above-average understanding of how the fediverse is supposed to work. That's why I think it was a notably odd choice for Spinster to use Gab as a base, rather than Pleroma or Mastodon... and unfortunately, the Spinster founders' choice reflects back on the rest of the community as their site gains notoriety.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-07T16:58:12+00:00

Yeah, that's fair. I would bet that the population of people with Intersex conditions (assuming that is what their I stand for...) have been especially disrupted by the new extreme trans activism / gender ideologies. They've had their complicated health and life issues completely appropriated by the gender ideologists, but as an even smaller percentage of the population than lesbians or gays, their voices of opposition are that much less likely to be recognized.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-07T12:46:18+00:00

It seems like gender ideology is an effective descriptor, then. Maybe it’s catching on because it’s a useful term.

In fact, it’s so useful, that the article becomes confusing at times...

If those who support human rights don’t stand up now, and if gender ideology continues to spread across the region in 2018, it is likely that the gains made by women and LGBTI people in recent years will be under threat.

For the most part, I agree.... gender ideology left unchecked will erase the rights that women and LGBs fought for.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-07T03:39:41+00:00

It caused me to think of one of my favorite pieces of Le Guin's writing, The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction.

Prior to the preeminence of sticks, swords and the Hero’s killing tools, our ancestors’ greatest invention was the container: the basket of wild oats, the medicine bundle, the net made of your own hair, the home, the shrine, the place that contains whatever is sacred. The recipient, the holder, the story. The bag of stars. (from publisher's notes about her essay)

DogeWalker · 2020-07-06T22:45:47+00:00

Vulnerable kids will be vulnerable to trafficking no matter which side of any border they are on. Female children everywhere are at heightened risk when it comes to vulnerability and the sex trafficking industry.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-06T21:56:32+00:00

Brilliant... thank you for posting!

DogeWalker · 2020-07-06T20:43:52+00:00

There is a tim in my lesbian book club because of course there is.

Me seeing a delicious looking milkshake from far away: yum omg I want that

Me when I get closer and notice the giant fly swimming in the milkshake: lol nope

DogeWalker