I'm a lesbian, and I unlike so, so many "gender critical" boymoms, housewives, and conservative boomers do I dislike dick no matter if it's attached to a "masculine" man or to a transsexual one. The problems with dicks have started LONG before transgenderism was ever a thing. But all "gender critical" women - many of the married to men, boymoms, housewives, conservatives, etc. - do is to focus on this ONE issue and ignoring virtually everything else. Because they are perfectly fine with dick - they just like dislike trannies for all the wrong reasons. (While loving their "masculine" husbands and sons, JFL. Pathetic.)

Against my original intention has this post turned into a rambling wall of a text I took a whole cup of tea to write, lol. But it's not like anyone forces you to read all of it.

I see the whole world turn into one neo-feudalistic shithole, really. World-wide high-tech dark ages in which women will get the worst of all possible worlds:

• economic exploitation as "empowered" wage slaves.
• sexual exploitation as "empowered" cum buckets.
• "traditional" exploitation as human livestock that is supposed to shut up and breed.

Meanwhile, this generation of men is not able and/or willing to perform traditionally masculine tasks such as protecting, providing, or fixing things in the house anymore but is also unable to perform traditionally feminine tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and emotional labor.

The left prefers transsexuals over actual women, the right prefers anime girls of actual women. The left wants to rape "Terfs" in Gulags, the right wants to rape "femoids" in concentration camps. And hating WHITE women - especially middle-aged white women ("Karens") - is probably the only thing left-wingers and right-wingers, Reddit feminists and 4chan incels, intersectionalists and anti-IDpol dudebros, white men and wo/men of color all can agree on.

Feminism and anti-racism have both failed in the sense that the progress that was made was a sideproduct from the development of feudalism to capitalism and then from the cold war between the capitalist Western and the communist Eastern block. I mean, just look back into history:

Until rather recently, the vast majority of all Westerners, no matter how white, male, and Christian both they and those ruling over them otherwise were, had been living in utmost poverty and misery for many, many centuries, despite the fact that the (proto-)industrialization rendered the West by far the richest part of the world. Only the fear of the emerging workers' movement resulted in the capitalist ruling class making a few concessions and introducing the weekend, ending child labor, the 38-hour week, old-age pensions, etc. It was all based on this idea of "sacrifice a part in order to keep the whole." Bismarck in the 19th century German Empire sacrified a part (and slightly increased working conditions for the working class) in order to keep the whole: outlawing socialists, keeping it a monarchy, keeping it a patriarchy, etc. And this peaked during the Cold War when the ruling class of the Western block was most afraid of communism. Between 1950-1990 the living standard in the West was - as to be expected - relatively high. Especially in those parts of Western Europe that were supposed to be "The Window to the West." So in order to subvert the Eastern bloc and in order to prevent Westerners from sympathizing with the East, they sacrified a part - gave them a higher living-standard - in order to save the whole. And once the Soviet Union imploded and fell apart for a variety of reasons, the ruling-class took back all these parts they had once sacrificed. Now the "middle-class" is gone and we're all turning into one gigantic neo-feudalistic shithole.

And as a monopoly-capitalist ruling-class has no interest in borders, racism, and nationalism anymore, racism is now the most mortal sin imaginable. (Except for temporary racism against white people, of course.). Capital either goes to misery or it imports misery. It either outsources to cheap labor or it imports cheap labor. Outscouring and open borders are two sides of the same coin. But their anti-racism stops the moment imported non-whites demand a higher living-standard. Then the capitalists rather let them attack white people as a scapegoat. Ironically, white people are now treated like Jews were treated for a long time. As a scapegoat for economic problems, often driven by jealousy over the fact that this hated minority managed to make at least a little bit of money instead of being as miserable as the poorest peasants.

Where I might disagree with you, btw, is that do not really see the US "falling apart as a nation." At least not in the sense this phrase seems to be commonly used. 99% of the American ruling class is on the same side. Not even Trump was able to implement any significant change. And if virtually all of the ruling class is on the same side, there will also be no civil war or anything. The only thing we will witness over the next four years are a few more right-wing incels shoot up synagogues and female gyms, but that won't change anything in the grand scheme of things.

In some ways, this talk about civil war on the internet often even feels like wishful thinking to me, like people waiting for a BANG rather than a prolonged whimper. And for people thinking that significant change is still possible. But it's very ahistorical thinking, imho. If the possessing (and therefore ruling) class is on the same side and only one side has the means to supply electricity and running water, pay soldiers, hospitals, wages, etc. there won't be a civil war, just isolated shooters and things like that. There is this very ahistorical, idealistic thinking among Westerners who believe that revolutions and wars happen if enough people are unhappy enough. But this is not how history works, imho. The standard in history is a minority oppressing and exploiting a majority, without it resulting in any actual revolutions. A few peasants rise up and get killed and that it's.

I'm obviously very influenced by Marxism. BUT I think the major mistake of Marx was his optimism. Or BOTH major mistakes of the historical Left are BOTH rooted in what Schopenhauer called a "ruchlosen Optimismus" – a shameless and outrageous optimism. BEcause contrary to what the Communist Manifesto seems to imply do the subjected classes usually not have the ability to eventually overcome their structural disadvantages. While a certain optimism might have been understandable among those who were mainly focusing on Western European history from the Renaissance to the "Belle Epoque" until the outbreak of World War I, actual "progress" that results in a higher living-standard, less suffering, and more pleasure for the non-possessing class remains the historical exception and not the rule.

The oppressed, subjected, and exploited classes remained exploited, subjected, and oppressed in the Roman Republic and Empire (where everything from slave rebellions to Gracchi reforms failed in murder and defeat) as well as in the long, long night that succeeded this empire and that lasted at least until the 12th century in its former Western part and in its Eastern part even longer, namely until it was brought down by another empire. The same is true, of course, for this "other empire", the Ottoman Empire, that was just as oppressive – and just as oppressive as Feudal Japan, Imperial China, the military oligarchy that was Sparta, all Muslim Caliphates, the pre-Columbian high cultures of the Americas, and the US empire that rules since 1990: worldwide and maybe forever.

The revolution does not happen, the subjected classes have absolutely no chance to overcome their structural disadvantages.

And the same is true for the left-wing view of human nature and biology. "Tabula rasa" is an inherently optimistic view of human nature. All the major issues are all just due to muh socialization or whatever. This is also bullshit. Biology matters - both in regards to gender/sex as well as maybe even in regard to race. At least you gotta say that in some ways, "the proletariat" is actually more of a "social construct" and less "material" than biology is. "The proletariat" is a construct that is shot through with all kinds of divisions, cleavages, heterogeneities, the majority are actually women and/or people of color and they do not necessarily have the same interests as the poor white men lurking on this sub. But leftists declare this to be "material" but penises to be socially constructs and sex as "IDpol" or whatever. (Edit: r/stupidpol - one of the larger "anti-IDpol leftist" places online requires "TERFS" to wear a right-wing tag because they consider the way we're talking about men "identity politics"...)

Marx is fundamentally a product of German Romanticism and the issues with it you still see with leftoids today. The main mistake of the left is their optimism both in regards to history and revolution as well as in regard to their illiterate view on human nature and biology.

This is also part of the reason why I reject "radical feminism." In a way, transgenderism is nothing but peak leftism, anyway, and Radical Feminism is obviously one branch of '60s leftism, despite them usually denying it. And historically, the leftist view of human nature is to see it as a "blank slate", as a "tabula rasa": instead of humans being shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations (which is nothing but reactionary pseudo-science according to the left), it all comes down to muh socialization.

And in a way, transgenderism just brings this worldview to its logical conclusion: human nature is nothing but a "social construct", biology doesn't matter, and men can be women because these categories are just social constructs themselves who do not essentially exist. ("Essentialism" is another thing leftists hate and accuse everyone who disagrees with them of promoting.)

So maybe this is part of the reason why RadFems have lost. Because the third-wave feminists have simply taken the second-wave feminist's anti-scientifical worldview to its most radical conclusion. But if you honestly believe that we all just have to return to the 60's version of feminism, you have lost your mind.