We've reached peak crazy.

slushpilot · 2020-07-24T02:10:11+00:00

"one is not defined based on others opinions"

How about being defined by objective facts like having a penis instead.
Why demand pronouns then.

slushpilot · 2020-07-11T01:24:45+00:00

It's probably for the best, they shouldn't represent the whole world of opinion. We could probably do with smaller, more decentralized communities with deeper, more meaningful connections.

slushpilot · 2020-07-16T16:20:22+00:00

This reads like it was written by a child!

there were people full on "doing it"

getting more drunk (I'm 21 relax)

The poor misguided soul.

slushpilot · 2020-09-03T18:14:32+00:00

This is the question you ask when someone claims the sudden surge in trans people is because they suddenly feel safe and welcome to come out.

It's not evenly distributed by a long shot. It's specific demographic groups, which proves it's a social contagion.

slushpilot · 2020-07-14T15:49:18+00:00

It's funny how they call that gender non-conforming when they are actively and purposefully performing cross-gender stereotypes. I'd rather be with someone who thinks "I don't care about gender, let's do something fun instead", rather than someone who's all wrapped up in pronouns, etc. Who wants to deal with that kind of solipsism & narcissism?

slushpilot · 2020-10-01T00:29:11+00:00

Just shows how much civil discourse is being manipulated online. We can't trust what is real public opinion anymore. This one's pretty obvious when it's a subject that every real person you know agrees on... but then think how many other topics are legitimately debatable but are quietly getting skewed for someone's personal agenda.

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T04:59:55+00:00

I thought r/GenderCriticalGuys was set aside as its own space to keep women's voices in the center of attention. Not that men were forbidden from posting on GC, just that it would sometimes derail discussions.

Still, the guys in that group were pretty much saying the exact same things that got GC banned. Men aren't women, etc. I don't understand the double-standard.

slushpilot · 2020-09-08T21:14:12+00:00

He could have stepped down graciously and applauded the women from the sidelines, or else competed with the men. Instead the issue had to be drawn out like this.

Caster Semenya is not the first intersex Olympic athlete, and likely not the last. The first, Erik Schinegger, did the right thing and is respected for it. Semenya's legacy will remain muddy and controversial at best.

slushpilot · 2020-12-07T07:43:51+00:00

If you can't define it, you shouldn't be making new words.

slushpilot · 2020-07-20T16:53:39+00:00

Yes, it was one of those british tabloids I think, but still the headline was framed like "And I'm glad I did" or something.

slushpilot · 2021-03-21T04:53:54+00:00

Thanks for this... I think I finally figured it out.

"Asexual" just means "Virgin"

slushpilot · 2020-08-13T05:58:45+00:00

“chest reconstructive surgery”

Good god that is Orwellian.

slushpilot · 2020-09-14T05:47:35+00:00

The apocalyptic smoke in the background of that news photo really adds to the imagery. State of the world, right there.

slushpilot · 2020-07-15T19:29:05+00:00

I'm worried that people who read about "the Gender Critical subreddit" in the news might not find it when they go looking for it—but will find that cesspit instead and then believe that's what "GC" is about. Then again, it might just peak them.

slushpilot · 2021-03-25T13:27:22+00:00

removed her as a mod after seeing the evidence. (this is not evidence from terfs)

Those parentheses say a lot.

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T02:34:17+00:00

I'm worried about the detrans community now.

It's mainly focused on support, but that does often mean bringing up and questioning the same things as r/GenderCritical did in order to see things as they really are. If Reddit is not allowed to acknowledge physical reality then I worry that sub is next against the wall.

It's also going to become a magnet for political discussion, when that was specifically against its purpose.

slushpilot · 2021-02-02T06:59:07+00:00

Also interesting: the number of them with extensive tattoos... I'm not sure if even a single one of them is not inked.

Makes me wonder, that's all. Not sure how to analyze that.

slushpilot · 2020-08-07T18:05:45+00:00

Spending too much time on computers and being exposed to the depravity that exists on the internet at a young age probably explains most of the correlation.

slushpilot · 2020-10-18T04:42:50+00:00

It goes beyond ignorance. "Very rare" they said.

slushpilot · 2020-07-10T20:08:52+00:00

This indiscriminate banning seems to show something about how they operate. "Oops didn't mean to", well how did it get on the list in the first place?

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T05:12:35+00:00

Very interesting that a sub dedicated to posting ONLY factual news headlines was just banned for "hate". Facts something something Feelings.

Amazing that you were able to grab this. Maybe you could start s/thisneverhappens here?

slushpilot · 2021-07-28T19:12:29+00:00

WorkDay

The finance, HR, and planning system for a changing world.

Why. Why would HR need to know who you fuck. Is your salary or career advancement connected to answering this?

slushpilot · 2021-02-04T07:40:52+00:00

It's hard to believe there's actually a singular "who" to all this... it's a social phenomenon, and It's pretty much everywhere now. Two things are driving it, IMO:

One, people's loneliness and desire to conform leads them to parrot and pile on with whatever the group is saying, which spirals into a shit tornado of tribal behaviour that ends up defending ever-dumber ideas. You can't direct a mob once it's moving.

Two, the group's stated goal to be "nice" and "inclusive" ironically creates an in-group/out-group split: as long as you agree, the tolerance will flow. People want to stay on the good side of the equation, so any rejected voices get shunned and that clicks the ratchet ever further to one side. It becomes a witch-hunt.

I was just listening to a talk by an author (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie) where she said "you have to be comfortable with being uncomfortable"... (You hear that sometimes when it comes to discussions about race these days—but it's often one-sided, and someone is being told to stay uncomfortably silent.) I actually think she has a nuanced interpretation to it though, and everyone needs the space to both say and more importantly to hear uncomfortable things. We need the ability to both say something honest, but potentially offensive, and also to have the grace to let it slide. It's like slack in the system, and right now we have none.

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T08:13:39+00:00

You can loosely translate it as self-loathing or a lack of respect for yourself. Often by starting to believe in what you think men want from you, and shaping yourself into that self-image for the sake of men—or else the other extreme of denying your own womanhood because of what it entails.

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T07:36:15+00:00

Oh, that was rhetorical... also the fact that r/GenderCynical is still up there gloating that the TERFs got knocked out—that kind of says it all.

slushpilot · 2020-10-26T23:35:19+00:00

We're sorry.

slushpilot · 2020-09-01T02:03:37+00:00

Many of the questions present false dichotomies and kafka-traps that can't be honestly answered. I got about halfway through it and gave up. For example:

"God created two sexes only"

Yes there are two sexes, but I don't know why religion is supposed to have anything to do with it. I "strongly agree" with biological fact, but also "strongly disagree" that this is some kind of belief. Conflating the two things is a non-sequitur. So what do you expect someone is supposed to answer there?

slushpilot · 2020-07-11T06:24:52+00:00

Agreed. I think something more precise like "personal attacks" or "dehumanizing language" is enough to cover it. Legitimate criticism must remain open.

slushpilot · 2020-09-13T19:46:42+00:00

Yes. If you normalize something in a way that you can't criticize it anymore, then it's no longer a kink. But, there's always something else just beyond the re-established boundary to call "kinky" again... and so it advances. The slippery slope is real.

slushpilot · 2020-09-03T05:17:11+00:00

I predict this will get shut down as a ban evasion. Reddit looks at patterns of which users cluster together and will likely decide that you shouldn't have the freedom to associate there. That place is dead to me.

I have to say, it's a strange name for a subreddit. How about women who don't care about "cis" notions of gender? Anyway, good luck.

slushpilot · 2020-07-28T02:05:37+00:00

Interesting how the main photo at the top is perfectly posed and lit "just so", to elicit sympathy and cast doubt. He really does look like a girl there.

Then you scroll down to the picture of him running, and it's from so far away... might as well be photographing the landscape. But still, you can absolutely tell that's a male frame!

slushpilot · 2020-07-10T01:07:32+00:00

Oh man, Robert Maxwell was allegedly a Mossad spy, who also had a strange death, ruled "not suicide".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell#Mossad_allegations;_Vanunu_case

Ghislaine's sister was also a search engine & data mining tech entrepreneur who sold software to the FBI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maxwell

You couldn't write these characters any better for a movie.

slushpilot · 2020-07-09T16:33:28+00:00

I'm not American, but I get the sense that this "political homelessness" is something many Americans are feeling. I admire your country but it's in a tough situation.

a party who wants me to not exist, who wants to silence me

I'm curious if there's a better interpretation of "not exist" and "silence", because this sounds identical to hyperbolic TRA language. For comparison, we all know what we mean when we say something like "adult human female"—and it's not saying that trans people don't or shouldn't exist.

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T05:07:59+00:00

Just curious, why do you indulge him with a "they"?

He did lie to that tribunal about his "parts", obviously, as if we didn't know that. I guess because it wasn't a real court there's no contempt or perjury.

slushpilot · 2021-05-13T00:33:11+00:00

First time for me hearing this person speak, and it's insufferable to listen to. Just goes on and on without ever making an actual point.

Good on this judge for cutting through the bullshit so directly.

slushpilot · 2020-11-19T01:46:39+00:00

Trans Awareness Weekend? Trans Awareness Fortnight? Ginger Amputee Suburban Postal Worker Trans Awareness Hour?

We haven't addressed those yet, have we. Bigot.

slushpilot · 2021-03-23T16:26:24+00:00

Maybe we need to revisit the debates of the atheism movements of 10-15 years ago.

Science is not a belief system, and anyone who says "trust the science" without understanding it themselves is just operating on faith. This is a religious statement, not a rational one.

slushpilot · 2021-03-21T03:42:34+00:00

Did the goth/emo craze of the early 00's not taught us anything?

Every. Single. Generation.

Bowie fans were androgynous aliens from mars... and got over it eventually. 18th century kids were scoffed at for the dandy/macaroni craze, too—you can still put a feather in your cap if you want to, but it don't mean shit.

slushpilot · 2020-12-13T23:29:16+00:00

The whole film is a lamentation of the fact that women are expected to meet men's standards—or else they are nothing.

Hence, "Be A Man" is rhetorical, not literal. In other words, "what do you expect me to do, Be A Man?" because that should be a ridiculous expectation.

How isn't that obvious? Is our culture really that dense and shallow? (Maybe don't answer that.)

slushpilot · 2020-12-02T03:55:24+00:00

"I dont feel male or female"

I never understood what this means. How do people come to believe this is some kind of feeling that you're expected to have? We don't say this about any of our other physical attributes...

slushpilot · 2020-11-23T18:04:38+00:00

Yeah, you're not crazy. 10-15-20 years ago seems to be about the right timeline. 5 years ago this new thing really took off.

most people, even if privately homophobic know what not to say

Learning what not to say is just basic politeness, but look who's ignoring & flaunting it now. Social justice has become public shaming.

How have we arrived where we are?

Unchecked "pride", perhaps. Amplified by the internet. It's transforming into something like racial pride now as things turn tribal. Not cool.

So I think to some degree we need to put the closet doors back on. Now hear me out—that doesn't mean hiding in shame. Everyone should be free to open up where and when they choose, but sometimes you need to just shove all your mental clutter and personal baggage in there and shut the door!

Honestly, why should anyone care who you live with or what you do in the bedroom in any public/professional setting. I do think we need spaces free from thinking about sex. I mean, rainbow flags at work & school seem benign, but what is it even saying or signaling anymore? So many things are now getting "queer" and "proud" where sex & sexuality don't even remotely belong!

Honestly I think most people don't care anymore, especially since the war is largely won and equal rights now exist in most places, and I'm afraid it's going to turn cynical. There might be a bit of backlash once the normal people back away and the only people left waving the various striped flags are the nutjobs.

slushpilot · 2020-11-23T08:43:39+00:00

Remind me. Trans gay means straight, right?

slushpilot · 2020-10-28T05:19:37+00:00

Sorry to say, but "art social media" sounds like a hellhole. You've got edgy meme culture on one side, and pandering regurgitated tropes on the other. No room for nuance or actual art there.

I think you just have to do your own thing, on your own site, and ignore "social media" except for posting links to your work there and let it go.

Something like what Tatsuya Ishida has been doing with Sinfest maybe? Or what kind of message do you have in mind for your art, since you're bringing this question into it?

slushpilot · 2020-09-02T02:34:46+00:00

There is a separate debate space for that: s/gcdebatesqt

slushpilot · 2020-08-13T07:17:12+00:00

There are multiple genders

Hmm, there are?

Are they discrete things with their own characteristics? What would make something count as a gender rather than a personality trait, a fashion clique, a medical condition, or something else in that case? What is it based on?

Or, is it like points on a continuum along a spectrum? If it is a spectrum, then what dimension is its axis and its limit at both ends? Oh, right—a spectrum has two ends. We usually call those "masculine" and "feminine"... so two genders then?

Or can you name a third?

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T07:03:50+00:00

Case in point: They want women only spaces, but would not extend the same courtesy to men

No, that's false. There was a r/GenderCritical and a separate r/GenderCriticalGuys sub for a reason. Interesting conversations in both. Same issues, different perspectives.

slushpilot · 2021-06-28T01:05:55+00:00

I think what's really interesting about this clip is how it reveals her sweet, naïve understanding of the current state of things:

"not transgender! he has a dick!"

There is still hope in hearing these words: I want to believe that most people think "transgender" means "transsexual", or someone who's had surgery. I want to believe that she and many others haven't yet understood the social reality that self-id means a man can now just say he is a woman, and that ostensibly makes him one.

There are many more yet to be peaked.

In any case, even if she knows what "transgender" means, this was the absolute best way to confront it: simply don't acknowledge their pseudo-reality and say it like it is. You don't need to understand the nuances of what "gender" means to know what a penis looks like. Don't play their game!

slushpilot · 2021-06-20T06:54:53+00:00

Just watched it, and I don't really get it. What is her whole thing? She wears a bowtie, and that makes her "queer"?

slushpilot · 2021-06-20T06:52:09+00:00

Or if it's not this, it's what race you are.

We used to have what you describe, or at least most people were working towards it. Not anymore.

slushpilot · 2020-12-02T03:22:47+00:00

It's also conveniently timed well with Canada's reading of Bill C-6 on criminalizing "conversion therapy" according to the newer definition including gender identity.

Page is Canadian and the CBC of course had the story covered right away.

slushpilot · 2020-10-07T02:19:22+00:00

Back in my day we just used to call this "having sex"!

Is it just me or does the term "PIV" literally sound like you now have to specify "Tab A Slot B" to explain how this works? I think we are doomed.

slushpilot · 2020-09-21T22:31:37+00:00

Bipedal is a spectrum. Amputees are valid.

slushpilot · 2020-09-02T02:31:48+00:00

"cis" means normal. If it's followed by -man or -woman, you can just ignore it in the sentence and it will make more sense.

slushpilot · 2020-07-22T21:26:39+00:00

Oh wow. So is this intended to speak to children and make them think this is totally normal?

Who the fuck is the target audience for such a character that is portrayed as you say "mature for her age". Gross.

slushpilot · 2020-07-20T19:30:04+00:00

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11842719/jk-rowling-ex-husband-abuse-claims/

slushpilot · 2021-07-15T03:02:48+00:00

That's a very gross stereotype of "white people". Imagine essentializing any other group of people like that. Grow up.

slushpilot · 2021-05-06T07:12:50+00:00

A different, less charitable reading: "We wouldn't have all these queers if it wasn't for the blacks!"

Just saying, careful whom you nominate as your flag bearer to stand behind.

Praise can become blame when it goes too far: things like women's rights and grooming children into transition are inevitably going to blow up in somebody's face, eventually. There's things to be proud of in the gay rights movement, of course—but "Pride" can be double-edged.

slushpilot · 2021-04-15T04:24:33+00:00

Fucking figures.

Literally figures, in a spreadsheet column. These are nothing less than calculated business decisions. Think about it this way:

You manage a health authority.
Your mandate is to promote health
You need to show measured improvement in "health"
Health "spending" is a proxy for actual health
You get to choose what conditions are covered as a "health condition" or not
Move cases from column A to column B
Look, a reduction!

This is only slightly different from when insurance companies promoted smoking so people would just die quicker and not linger on their policy.

slushpilot · 2021-03-09T07:39:25+00:00

The key difference between GC and "superstraight" and why it suddenly works is that instead of trying to push back against trans nonsense, the supers are holding up a mirror and simply making the same claims ("we are valid" / "don't be phobic") in reverse as though it's a sexual minority to be straight.

So, there is something to it.

slushpilot · 2020-09-02T02:27:53+00:00

Anyways, what's the deal with all the weird flags all of a sudden? It's like they're really grasping for something concrete to hold on to because the rest of their ideology is just made-up nonsense.

slushpilot · 2020-08-13T05:40:32+00:00

Yes. It doesn't matter that these ideas are fundamentally unrealistic. Some people live in a sci-fi fantasy world with the help of the internet, and think themselves beyond biology.

It all depends on the specific connotation of "trans" being applied: it can mean "transition" (from one to the other), or else "transcendence" (beyond).

Meanwhile, we still need those protections.

slushpilot · 2020-08-13T00:39:50+00:00

I haven't seen this anywhere but it seems a bit weak and contrived to be a good descriptor. I can't see it sticking.

"Women Exclusionary" doesn't really stick. They might be edging out women, for example by out-competing in sports, but there's no exclusion of women going on. It's more like a total denial that "woman" as a sex category even exists, thus lumping everyone together.
"Radical" has a specific meaning which does not mean "extremist" as some people misinterpret it. I understand that's how it's being used here, as a pejorative, but using it this way undermines the original meaning of Radical Feminism.

At least the "Misogynist" part is correct.

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T05:37:15+00:00

I think you'd find many more conservatives who say "girls can become anything they want" before you find one who says "girls can become boys" though.

slushpilot · 2021-07-16T17:36:51+00:00

Withhold services when people have a medical condition that might need surgery. They are perfect and valid in the body they were born with!
Promote surgery when people have a mental discomfort but are physically normal. They are born in the wrong body!

Makes sense, right?

slushpilot · 2021-01-15T20:13:13+00:00

single human of unknown or undeclared sex

That is precisely what "they" as an indefinite singular pronoun is meant for. The problem only arises when trying to use it for a definitely known person, and pretending like you don't know who they are. (This usage of they is exactly as intended.)

Imagine showing up at a hotel desk and saying: "I'm here with my wife and my son. They would like a separate room."

slushpilot · 2020-10-29T02:58:47+00:00

If the enemy of your movement is Martina Navratilova—if that's somebody who you're declaring to be a hateful bigot, not welcome in decent company—who are your fucking allies!?

slushpilot · 2020-09-08T17:34:39+00:00

I wonder if this saying speaks to women's insecurities about their body, so while this message is a good response to beauty standards and most people would agree with acceptance of "all shapes, sizes and colours", it's also a trojan horse for people who literally mean all shapes, including male genitals.

slushpilot · 2020-08-05T16:50:20+00:00

A transhumanist story, absolutely!

"Trans" as in "transcendent", I get it!

But you can't go back and claim "gender" as the theme that was being transcended. Good luck with that.

slushpilot · 2020-07-08T22:30:04+00:00

I just finished watching an interview with her and I'm really interested in her book, even though I'm probably aware of everything that's in it... thinking the same that it might be good to share it.

I'll post that interview on here too, it's worth a watch.

slushpilot · 2020-07-08T18:03:45+00:00

Therefore, that word has lost all meaning.

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T04:36:26+00:00

Depends. Which feminism are we talking about? Liberal Feminism is a trash fire, I'll give you that.

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T03:21:00+00:00

That chart is going to tell an important story once the "cliff" gets added to the end in the next few days.

slushpilot · 2020-06-30T00:09:37+00:00

You might be confusing r/GenderCritical with other "feminist" subs. I very rarely saw any banning there.

Unlike other "feminist" subs, it was one of the least toxic (i.e. no "educate yourself") communities.

Saying that "woman" is a physical reality is what got it banned—that's not karma, that's a double standard.

slushpilot · 2021-05-01T18:47:01+00:00

"Just want to pee" ... Just like Yaniv.

Fucking narcissistic performative garbage.

slushpilot · 2021-03-22T16:53:29+00:00

Also explain detrans folks that then transition again

I wonder how many of them do so because of losing their friends/community, too.

slushpilot · 2020-11-11T05:07:00+00:00

I'm shocked this decision actually came out of the BC Supreme Court—after the opposite judgment in the case where the father was forbidden from preventing his 14-year-old daughter from taking hormones, and even discussing the facts of the case:

This new supreme court case is a good precedent, I do hope it reverses some things but I'm not holding my breath. It may yet go to court of appeals like the case above and get the bArBaRa fInDLay activist treatment there. (I think that's how she capitalizes it, lol.)

slushpilot · 2020-10-12T02:21:41+00:00

Abnormal is normal for that child.

I've heard cruelty defined as that which you cannot predict—it's when you get punished for something inconsequential, or that you had no possibility of knowing. When you do your best but have the rug pulled out from under you.

It's one thing to be corrected when you've done wrong in a way you can understand and learn from. But when your whole world becomes a minefield with no stable reality, that's a recipe for trauma.

It's why we don't punish people without the mental capacity to understand, or punish dogs for something they didn't do.

Unpredictability is also how you break people down so they become compliant to anything you say. Cults, totalitarian regimes, abusive husbands and the like have used cruelty like this to their great advantage.

It's A Clockwork Orange.

"BLUE!? Wrong again. The sunset sky is red! I'm so sorry but I must administer the electric shock again."

slushpilot · 2020-09-19T04:45:27+00:00

Slight correction: bee colonies are >95% female worker bees. Where the queen lays fertilized eggs, only females emerge: usually worker bees, or else a new queen when the hive grows beyond its capacity and is about to swarm (split off and establish a new colony). Where the queen lays haploid (unfertilized) eggs, drone bees emerge. The queen can choose, depending on the size of the cell the workers prepared for her! Drone bees are the males, and their only purpose is to mate with a virgin queen from another colony. Therefore, the hive doesn't spend much of its resources raising very many of them. Before winter, the drones get dragged out of the hive and die. Hence in winter, bee colonies are 100% female.

slushpilot · 2020-07-30T05:55:57+00:00

lithromantic

oh. I thought it meant you write poems about rocks.

slushpilot · 2020-07-08T18:22:33+00:00

This is incredibly sad.

I never really thought about this before but wouldn't this show evidence of one's true "identity" once the will to maintain it is no longer there?

Research in this area could potentially find a way to diagnose whether there is actually such a thing as a "true transexual" in clinical terms. I assume there are drugs (psychedelics/disassociative) that can induce a similar state, and could also help a "dysphoric" patient see if this identity is something they can still hold onto below a purely conscious level.

slushpilot · 2021-07-11T07:21:07+00:00

Tomorrow, July 10th, is the world day without hijab. This came out as a response to World Hijab Day. Throughout our campaign, I tried reaching out to the organisers of World Hijab day to get their support in our fight against compulsory hijab in Iran. But they blocked me.

Is "World Hijab Day" actually an example of GC Feminism? Or woke feminism?

slushpilot · 2020-12-31T18:44:30+00:00

That's only going to get worse the more people are starved for ordinary human connections, I think. Talking on the bus becomes a porn fantasy, basically.

Everyone's self absorbed, then add to that how men are deluded by porn, and I can't see how it gets better from here.

slushpilot · 2020-10-27T01:49:32+00:00

refuse to acknowledge that transgender people are people

That's a weird straw-person.

slushpilot · 2020-10-22T03:44:50+00:00

That it was necessary kind of proves their whole point, doesn't it?

slushpilot · 2020-10-04T17:42:46+00:00

This is such a key point that it warrants highlighting. +100.

actual diagnosed dysphoria related to their body (NOT to gender roles because you do not fix social issues with medical intervention)

That is also the same issue I have with so-called "non-binary". This identity isn't based in anything more than superficial clothes, make-up and silly pronouns. You could already do those things without expecting everyone to address you as a unique category.

Again, if you're legitimately intersex, then I'll accept that! But we know everyone is just playing dress-up and expecting us to pretend it's something more—it's such an embarrassing fad.

slushpilot · 2020-10-02T23:29:25+00:00

Because every woman thinks "I want to get pregnant so I can have an abortion".

The totally hypothetical person who would think that doesn't sound like they're thinking for themselves, and is an insane person trying to prove something to "all of them" out of spite.

slushpilot · 2020-09-03T18:11:08+00:00

Reddit argued that because moderaters of the subreddits remove content within them based on the rules of each community, changes to Section 230 would “undermine” that system

Funny. They fail to mention how admins unilaterally remove communities. This is not about in-community moderation.

slushpilot · 2020-07-01T03:23:39+00:00

You have some kind of psychological problem that manifests in irrational hatred of women. OK, I get it.

But why would you even concern yourself that women are over there speaking without you? It's probably not healthy for you.

Best of luck with your issues.

slushpilot · 2021-03-23T23:32:23+00:00

Linking to an article with a public person's name—unrelated to Reddit—is not doxxing.

It's the hypersensitive overreaction that's the story here.

It's not about hating "trans people", it's people with a narcissistic personality disorder. "Needs help" ... I'm not the first to suggest it either.

slushpilot · 2020-12-02T04:02:39+00:00

Amazing how they refuse to print her actual legal name as of yesterday.

It's like a game of charades where they have to describe "you know the guy in the movie with the thing and the other dude with the famous song"...

slushpilot · 2020-10-03T04:07:18+00:00

All of these points are completely irrelevant. They could be 100% scientifically true for all I care, but it does not matter.

When we're debating as a society about transwomen and the question of abolishing sex-based rights—it's never been about DSDs, or variations of chromosomes, or slugs. Those "gotcha" points are just cheap diversions.

These kinds of arguments work by finding the rarest of exceptions to the rule and turning them into the general rule, as if we should apply the logic of the smallest exception to everything that is not exceptional. It's dishonest.

This deconstruction technique is an important part of postmodernism: you take something that is normally obvious to everyone (common sense), then break it down into small details, and frame your narrative to position whatever detail you want as primarily important. Hence why you hear about things that are "just socially constructed"—it implies we can deconstruct and rearrange them, at will.

Intersex conditions are such a tiny proportion of people, it's not even worth arguing about. Keep your eyes on the big picture.

We're talking about men. All of them unambiguously male in their biology and behaviour. Or women, all unambiguously female, whether or not they menstruate, or have the capacity to get pregnant, or wear dresses. It doesn't matter: still women according to the same common sense we've always had.

I've not yet heard of an actual intersex person for whom any of these supposed "trans rights" are really an issue like they are for the Woke crowd. It's also important to remember that people with DSDs are not even trans: some might technically qualify, but I would assume most would actually prefer to have the natural genitalia & characteristics of their birth sex! These transgender pushers are just using people with legitimate sexual development disorders, and don't actually speak for them.

Ok, maybe I can think of one legitimate debate around these issues, which I think it can serve as a practical example: Caster Semenya. The question of someone who didn't know they were male running womens' races in the Olympics is a worthwhile discussion—but only for that individual because it's a very unique case. The important thing to remember is, you can't just apply the same logic to everyone else and pretend like it's the same thing.

slushpilot · 2020-09-19T03:12:21+00:00

We're really just making this harder than it needs to be, aren't we? We know what biology is for men and women in 99.99% of cases, so we could just keep doing that, maybe?

I'd be totally fine with special consideration to those with a verified genetic or developmental condition—sure, let them legally identify themselves. There may be situations where that gets challenged, like Caster Semenya, but hey, the world is messy and we can deal with it as it comes up.

There's no sense arguing about such a tiny proportion of people. Whatever the conclusion of this scientific article is—it's just derailing the topic and is completely irrelevant to the "trans rights" issue that everyone is actually talking about for the vast majority of those who want to self-identify.

I see it like,

"I believe men shouldn't be admitted into women's prisons & shelters & sports."

— "But the scientific truth says! XXY! klinefelter! bimodal! seahorses!" —

"Sir, this is a Wendy's."

slushpilot · 2020-08-09T04:43:42+00:00

Why do TiM always seem to be "in danger"?

I suspect you know the answer: because what's actually in danger is the ego.

(I mean, these are the same people who think that JK Rowling saying some words can make a person disappear.)

slushpilot · 2020-07-29T00:28:30+00:00

Huh, so it's right out there in the open, highlighted as a bullet point:

Having pronouns in an email signature signals you as an LGBTQIA+ ally.

I didn't realize that working for the government meant that you were obligated to wave their political banners on a personal level. It's despicable to demand that. On top of that, whatever you are being asked to support is totally vague and open-ended, as denoted by the "+".

slushpilot · 2020-07-28T02:15:20+00:00

The vast majority of people are not attracted to transgender people. That's just nature.

The fact that nobody's even allowed to say this is the scary thing.

slushpilot