Funny events in anti-woke world

[CriticalGaming]

Ah yes, I see you are the kind of cis person who can always tell when someone is trans. Truly you have a unique and special gif which no other cis person likes to pretend they have.

I mean, I can't clock Laverne so I don't know how you think you can. Is it because she's tall? Do you assume any tall woman you meet is trans? Or is it perhaps because, when you know someone is trans, you do what cis people do and dissect their appearance relentlessly to compare against the stereotype you carry around in your head.

Like, just for one moment consider the transparency of the glass house you are living in as a cishet man trying to judge other people's appearances.

Ok first of all, everyone everywhere judges people based on their appearance. That is why appearances are important, at least on first impression basis. You can't show up to a job interview with your hair a mess and wearing dirty clothes for example. When you see someone who looks like shit you immediately judge them even if consciously. Some who looks shady you might naturally give a wide birth or avoid entirely if you can.

On the flip side, when you see someone very put together, attractive or just well dressed, you naturally relax a bit more. Well put together people get a better response from others just because of this superficial judgement.

It is superficial yes, but still very important when it comes to social interaction and world perception of people. So don't pretend like it's some sort of exclusive thing to cis people due to some high horse.

Second of all, Laverine's voice is what got me to be honest. She sounds like a man doing a woman's voice, especially when she has to do any sort of yelling in the TV shows or movies she's done. When she has to put excitement into her voice, her voice tends to break and that's the key of it, to me. And it must be a good indicator because I wasn't wrong she IS trans so if it works it aint stupid right?

Thats your sample of trans rights discourse?

The fact you would honestly put Jordan Peterson in there.

Typical liberal bullshit. "Oh you mention a name I don't like therefore your argument is completely invalid fuck you." That's not an argument. What about the other sources I mentioned? Rilly Dennis, world news stations? They don't count of course because any media that would even entertain the narrative that you don't agree with is instantly invalid and bullshit.

Unfortunately that's not how discourse and discussion works, nor is it how change occurs. You don't like it, then continue to hide in a hole where the naughty opinions of others can't hurt you anymore.

I will judge you for it, and I'm not alone in doing so. If you don't care about my judgement, ask yourself why I should care for one second about yours.

Fair enough, but I will also judge the dude in a red dress with a full on beard in return. Everyone judges others that's the way of it, if you don't want to face that judgement then make efforts to not stand out in any jarring way, but if you don't care then live your best life. Who gives a shit?

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't think it's possible to hate Candace Owens as much as she hates herself.

Then I would suggest she go sit in a cave and do that and leave the rest of the world the fuck alone.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Everyone judges others that's the way of it, if you don't want to face that judgement then make efforts to not stand out in any jarring way, but if you don't care then live your best life. Who gives a shit?

And that way won't ever change so long as people continue to judge others for not looking pretty, handsome, feminine, or masculine enough for what they deem is proper based on their gender. You seem to be aware that this judgement is superficial and therefor petty, but then decide to not bother trying to set an example in changing it by NOT judging a trans woman for not looking femine enough by your definition.

This judging others on how they look is not set in stone or demanded by the gods - we do this, and we can change this. And this change won't happen if we're just going to be set in our ways, and laugh at others - others who this judgement actively hurts - for trying to enact this change.

Putting the onus on the people who are being judged and persecuted simply for not looking right in the eyes of the public, either by making an effort to not stand out or to not give a shit, is frankly a very ignorant statement.

 

[Buyetyen]

Ok first of all, everyone everywhere judges people based on their appearance. That is why appearances are important, at least on first impression basis. You can't show up to a job interview with your hair a mess and wearing dirty clothes for example. When you see someone who looks like shit you immediately judge them even if consciously. Some who looks shady you might naturally give a wide birth or avoid entirely if you can.

On the flip side, when you see someone very put together, attractive or just well dressed, you naturally relax a bit more. Well put together people get a better response from others just because of this superficial judgement.

It is superficial yes, but still very important when it comes to social interaction and world perception of people. So don't pretend like it's some sort of exclusive thing to cis people due to some high horse.

And this gives you the ability to immediately tell apart trans and cis people at a glance, how?

Second of all, Laverine's voice is what got me to be honest. She sounds like a man doing a woman's voice, especially when she has to do any sort of yelling in the TV shows or movies she's done. When she has to put excitement into her voice, her voice tends to break and that's the key of it, to me. And it must be a good indicator because I wasn't wrong she IS trans so if it works it aint stupid right?

One time I guessed it was going to rain and it did. By your logic, this makes me psychic.

Typical liberal bullshit. "Oh you mention a name I don't like therefore your argument is completely invalid fuck you." That's not an argument. What about the other sources I mentioned? Rilly Dennis, world news stations? They don't count of course because any media that would even entertain the narrative that you don't agree with is instantly invalid and bullshit.

Unfortunately that's not how discourse and discussion works, nor is it how change occurs. You don't like it, then continue to hide in a hole where the naughty opinions of others can't hurt you anymore.

No, the problem is that you keep citing sources who are overtly full of shit and then playing the victim card when you get called out on it. You never bother to vet anything you watch, you just believe it uncritically. Your screenname is ironic in that there's no critical thinking in any of your opinions or beliefs.

Fair enough, but I will also judge the dude in a red dress with a full on beard in return. Everyone judges others that's the way of it, if you don't want to face that judgement then make efforts to not stand out in any jarring way, but if you don't care then live your best life. Who gives a shit?

So what makes you so fucking special?

 

[Agema]

If a person who claims to love and have empathy for trans people and a person who makes no secret of outright hating them can literally use the same arguments, what does that actually say?

Not very much. A lot of people who have the same objections to Soviet Communism can have very different views and attitudes from each other.

I think there we can have a tendency to react to opposition by thinking that someone not just disagrees, but are actively ill-intentioned. But we also know that prejudice can be the result of ignorance rather than malice. People can also prioritise - they care about multiple things, but not all those things can receive their assistance or attention.

So for instance everyone was happy with Eddie Redmayne for disagreeing with Rowling's opinions on trans people. But when he later said he thought she did not deserve the tidal wave of abuse, he was then characterised by some as a pompous cishet transphobe and a shill for the studio producing the Fantastic Beasts film. The word that starts bumping around my head for this sort of attitude is "intolerance". I didn't like it when the likes of George W. Bush came out with absurd, Manichean views of the world, and I don't think it's any better here.

 

[CriticalGaming]

And that way won't ever change so long as people continue to judge others for not looking pretty, handsome, feminine, or masculine enough for what they deem is proper based on their gender. You seem to be aware that this judgement is superficial and therefor petty, but then decide to not bother trying to set an example in changing it by NOT judging a trans woman for not looking femine enough by your definition.

It's not even necessarily about feminine or masculine. It's about being presentable. Wear clothing that fits the frame, style the hair in a way that presents yourself in a clean way. If you wear a dress make sure it fits and looks good on you. I used going to a job interview as an example, and there is an expected level of presentation that you have to adhere to because companies want someone who can cleanly present themselves to customers and other business dealings like board meetings and client negotiations.

Wear whatever you want and look however you want. But people will always judge. If you dress like a Circus Clown and walk down Sunset Blvd or Midtown Manhattan, then you are going to get obvious stares because it's not a normal general form of dressing. Does that make the person in the clown suit wrong? No. But they also don't have any right to complain when people stare because it comes across as strange. People always look at the strange shit.

Look whatever ya'll can pretend you don't judge people but it's everyone's natural instinct to do so and acting like it's a societal plague is just dumb.

No, the problem is that you keep citing sources who are overtly full of shit and then playing the victim card when you get called out on it.

Explain to me how the people I cite are full of shit? Is Riley Dennis full of shit? Is Kalvin? Blair? Oh but because I've seen Peterson debate it invalidates anyone else i've seen because you think a very educate college professor with degrees in shit I can't even pronounce is full of shit? Again it's simply because someone presents an opinion you don't like.

If you don't like my sources, get me one you approve of and I'll give them a read.

The rule of the left is, "If you don't like what someone says, call them a bigot and scream until they stop talking."

 

[McElroy]

I will also judge the dude in a red dress with a full on beard in return.

You would, huh?
Anyways, I found the recent discussion on this topic (more or less, about the metaphysics of gender) between streamers Joanna "thesillyserious" Richards and Steven "Destiny" Bonnell interesting. While it's almost two hours long it's still far from the reading list Joanna posted on Reddit. Myself, while I'd vastly prefer to ditch the metaphysics and simply have no bridge between biology and culture, I don't think it can be done. Yet under the postmodern definition of transphobia I feel no pressure to be politically correct either. Like Blaire White, who has high standards for transwomen which comes off as transphobic to many people.

To give an idea of this, view the Olympic heats for the men's 100m: a substantial number of the male athletes were running slower times than the female athletes in the women's final. Thus in all likelihood some whole countries do not have a single man who can sprint faster than the world's fastest women.

The slowest time in heats by a qualified man was two hundredths faster than Griffith-Joyner's women's world record. This substantial number were people that got in because the IOC lets one Track and Field athlete per NOC to participate regardless of previous results. But I guess the point is more about elite level results requiring elite coaching and talent no matter your sex.

As a result of this, a "takeover" of women's sports by trans women is extraordinarily unlikely. Around 1% of the population identifies as transgender (including non-binary) and the number who have undergone some sort of medical transition is vastly lower still. Consequently the crossover of ultra-high performing sportspeople and trans-people is going to be exceptionally small. This will almost guarantee that the top performing women in sports will overwhelmingly remain cis-women.

If there's a will there's a way. Sportstranswomen are as rare as they are because their experiences in sports suck, and as a cultural phenomenon trans liberation is new. Thus it's only a matter of time someone will transition with winning the women's competition in mind. We will then see if the regulations even the field or not. My example for future reference is a Finnish 17-year-old high jumper Jade Nyström who competes in the men's event and has a record of 194cm. If they keep their trajectory they will reach 210-215 in a couple of years. Jade is bound to begin a medical transition at some point and then we shall see.

 

[Buyetyen]

Explain to me how the people I cite are full of shit? Is Riley Dennis full of shit? Is Kalvin? Blair? Oh but because I've seen Peterson debate it invalidates anyone else i've seen because you think a very educate college professor with degrees in shit I can't even pronounce is full of shit? Again it's simply because someone presents an opinion you don't like.

Let's start with Jordan Peterson as he is the highest profile figure among the ones listed. Peterson argues correctly that gender identity is not solely self-determined. There are societal pressures defining genders. For example, men don't wear dresses. Where he's full of shit is his argument that trans people are refusing to engage in identity negotiations. This is patently false just by the fact that trans people are engaging in identity negotiations by the very fact they're trying to become societally acceptable instead of an aberration that must be suppressed, to say nothing of all the linguistic challenges.

Peterson also attempts to argue that non-binary identities are bad because they allegedly provide no social direction. This is also blatantly false as defining what you are not is every bit as important as defining what you are. Non-binary identities are creating their own social roles, which if we believe in self-determination, should be celebrated.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that Peterson sees trans and non-binary identities as a threat to the nuclear family. He is adamant that the only proper family structure is a man, a woman, and their kids. To be clear, nuclear families are fine if that's what you want for yourself. Not everyone does. Peterson does not accept that. His fetishization of the nuclear family is especially apparent in his stance regarding enforced monogamy.

Peterson also takes a combative stance almost constantly because that's what drives views to his YT channel and Twitter account. He figured out years ago that conservatives eat that shit up.

Any other questions?

The rule of the left is, "If you don't like what someone says, call them a bigot and scream until they stop talking."

I'm not calling you a bigot. I'm calling you arrogant. There's a difference.

 

[CriticalGaming]

This is patently false just by the fact that trans people are engaging in identity negotiations by the very fact they're trying to become societally acceptable instead of an aberration that must be suppressed, to say nothing of all the linguistic challenges.

How do they need to be suppressed. I think there is less of a concern with the cross over they are trying to make between gender roles, as there is a "fitting" in with thier chosen gender role. Men be men trans or not, and women be women trans or not. I don't find that to be a particularly demanding grasp. Nobody is saying that they have to be exceptionally or even moderately attractive either. Simply presentable as best as possible just like everyone should at least in public spaces or in spaces that aren't a tribute to the outlandish which is also fine.

Peterson also attempts to argue that non-binary identities are bad because they allegedly provide no social direction. This is also blatantly false as defining what you are not is every bit as important as defining what you are. Non-binary identities are creating their own social roles, which if we believe in self-determination, should be celebrated.

Unfortunately for you, I agree with Peterson in this regard. I think this non-binary push is a psychological disorder of some kind. Either stemming from the non-special persons desire to be special, or simply a maddening reasoning to find a way to portray themselves as a victim since they so often like to squeeze into the "marginalized" demographic. Not to mention I think non-binary and the gender spectrum as a whole directly contradicts and insults the transmovement who are people that feel that they are born in the wrong body, and they go through incredible hardships to configure their bodies in a way that fits how they view themselves. This non-binary and genderfluid idea that someone can simple be whatever they want on a whim total underminds that concept and is more like a fairy tale than anything that holds up to any real scrutiny.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that Peterson sees trans and non-binary identities as a threat to the nuclear family. He is adamant that the only proper family structure is a man, a woman, and their kids. To be clear, nuclear families are fine if that's what you want for yourself. Not everyone does. Peterson does not accept that. His fetishization of the nuclear family is especially apparent in his stance regarding enforced monogamy.

I agree with you here, I don't think the nuclear family is the only option. Gay Couples, Lesbian couples, adoption, are all viable family units and i don't have problems there. Peterson's outlook on that might be based of the religion, but I don't know if he's attached to any chruch or anything.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's not even necessarily about feminine or masculine. It's about being presentable. Wear clothing that fits the frame, style the hair in a way that presents yourself in a clean way. If you wear a dress make sure it fits and looks good on you. I used going to a job interview as an example, and there is an expected level of presentation that you have to adhere to because companies want someone who can cleanly present themselves to customers and other business dealings like board meetings and client negotiations.

And who's to say the person wearing it doesn't think their clothes or hair look good on them? It's really not anybody's business whether or not a dress fits someone or looks good other than the person wearing the dress. Not every ensemble is meant to go job hunting in. As a matter of fact I'd say nobody picks their daily clothes with the idea of 'will this get me a job', unless they're actually going in for a job interview. And even then certain people will still get judged for having a skin color, facial structure, or physical disability that's seen as out of the ordinary or "unclean".

Wear whatever you want and look however you want. But people will always judge. If you dress like a Circus Clown and walk down Sunset Blvd or Midtown Manhattan, then you are going to get obvious stares because it's not a normal general form of dressing. Does that make the person in the clown suit wrong? No. But they also don't have any right to complain when people stare because it comes across as strange. People always look at the strange shit.

The big difference being that none of the people who are being persecuted for looking out of the ordinary - either because they're trans, gay, or non-binary - dress like circus clowns. They just dress out of the ordinary. Just like how women were once seen as dressing out of the ordinary for wearing pants. And if people are getting stared at for looking "too gay" or "too trans" they have every right to complain, seeing as it's fucking rude to just openly stare at someone.

Look whatever ya'll can pretend you don't judge people but it's everyone's natural instinct to do so and acting like it's a societal plague is just dumb.

Oh, I DO (internally) judge people for how they look. That's the automatic response to being confronted by something that is different from what you usually see. But it's just that; something you don't usually see. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'll try to look past that and not think of them as weird or lesser than me because of that. I certainly won't openly pass judgement on them since it's none of my damn business how they choose to look.

And it very much is societal since looks change throughout the centuries. This is why when the whole 'bring back manly men' BS was being touted by the usual conservatives in response to Harry Styles wearing a dress, people rightly countered this with how succesful, manly men were supposed to dress in the 1700's, and how this would be seen as effeminate now. And people getting bullied or even beat up on a regular basis for how they look - so much so that it's pretty much to be expected - is most definitely a plague.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

How do they need to be suppressed. I think there is less of a concern with the cross over they are trying to make between gender roles, as there is a "fitting" in with thier chosen gender role. Men be men trans or not, and women be women trans or not. I don't find that to be a particularly demanding grasp. Nobody is saying that they have to be exceptionally or even moderately attractive either. Simply presentable as best as possible just like everyone should at least in public spaces or in spaces that aren't a tribute to the outlandish which is also fine.

Dude, you started this argument by judging a weightlifter looking like a weightlifter wearing weightlifter clothes doing weightlifter things at a weightlifting competition.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

And it very much is societal since looks change throughout the centuries. This is why when the whole 'bring back manly men' BS was being touted by the usual conservatives in response to Harry Styles wearing a dress, people rightly countered this with how succesful, manly men were supposed to dress in the 1700's, and how this would be seen as effeminate now.

There's a picture of FDR as a 2 1/2 year old boy, wearing a dress. Back in the late 19th century ALL boys in the US wore dresses until the age of 6 or so. The thing that Republicans want isn't a return to tradition- they want a return to when it was easy to pigeonhole people without having to think about it.

 

[Buyetyen]

How do they need to be suppressed. I think there is less of a concern with the cross over they are trying to make between gender roles, as there is a "fitting" in with thier chosen gender role. Men be men trans or not, and women be women trans or not. I don't find that to be a particularly demanding grasp. Nobody is saying that they have to be exceptionally or even moderately attractive either. Simply presentable as best as possible just like everyone should at least in public spaces or in spaces that aren't a tribute to the outlandish which is also fine.

Wait, you seriously think LGBTQ people don't have to deal with marginalization? Are you for fucking real?

Unfortunately for you, I agree with Peterson in this regard.

Well good for you, you're wrong.

I think this non-binary push is a psychological disorder of some kind. Either stemming from the non-special persons desire to be special, or simply a maddening reasoning to find a way to portray themselves as a victim since they so often like to squeeze into the "marginalized" demographic. Not to mention I think non-binary and the gender spectrum as a whole directly contradicts and insults the transmovement who are people that feel that they are born in the wrong body, and they go through incredible hardships to configure their bodies in a way that fits how they view themselves. This non-binary and genderfluid idea that someone can simple be whatever they want on a whim total underminds that concept and is more like a fairy tale than anything that holds up to any real scrutiny.

And this is why I call you arrogant. You know nothing about this subject and weave elaborate bullshit webs to pretend you know everything.

A non-binary person simply does not identify with either gender. It's not a cry for help, it's a thing that just happens. And it is truly the height of arrogance to declare that gender queer people are a detriment to LGBTQ equality, especially when you yourself keep citing as arguments people opposed to that equality as if they are somehow more credible.

I agree with you here, I don't think the nuclear family is the only option. Gay Couples, Lesbian couples, adoption, are all viable family units and i don't have problems there. Peterson's outlook on that might be based of the religion, but I don't know if he's attached to any chruch or anything.

And yet, despite the fact that you admit he's arguing from a false premise, you still consider him a credible counter to the queer community's demands for equal treatment.

 

[CriticalGaming]

you still consider him a credible counter to the queer community's demands for equal treatment.

Never said he was totally credible. He was just a name you attached to in a list of names that i've watched. I don't know what to tell you. I've listened to many viewpoints and the result of that is where i stand on things now.

That's really all there is to say on the matter. You disagree with me, cool beans, i guess we're done for now.

 

[Buyetyen]

I've listened to many viewpoints

lol No you haven't. You've listened to demagogues. When actual queer people on this forum try to explain things to you, you blow them off and disregard them. Again, this is why I call you arrogant.

 

[Casual Shinji]

There's a picture of FDR as a 2 1/2 year old boy, wearing a dress. Back in the late 19th century ALL boys in the US wore dresses until the age of 6 or so.

No wonder America lost WW2. Oh what.. they didn't? But how's that possible what with the President of the United States having been perverted and indoctrinated by SJWs at such a young age?

Seriously though, many conservatives today would've wanted America to have lost the war just because of this. Have you seen them creaming their pants over the U.S. womens soccer team losing at the Olympics, and how the "blue-haired lesbians" were beaten by "hot Swedish blondes"? Actual words that were spoken by a grown man.

 

[Buyetyen]

Seriously though, many conservatives today would've wanted America to have lost the war just because of this. Have you seen them creaming their pants over the U.S. womens soccer team losing at the Olympics, and how the "blue-haired lesbians" were beaten by "hot Swedish blondes"? Actual words that were spoken by a grown man.

When you have no principles, what else is there to run on but spite?

 

[Casual Shinji]

When you have no principles, what else is there to run on but spite?

Oh I believe they have principles, but that spite is just way tastier to them. More importantly, it's tastier to their generous and gullible viewing audience.

 

[BrawlMan]

If they don't have something to get mad about conservatives won't know who they are anymore and they'll implode into an existential black hole. It's for their own safety really.

Also, fuck Candace Owens. #validcriticism

Yep, fuck the aunty Ruckus!

​

 

[Silvanus]

The rule of the left is, "If you don't like what someone says, call them a bigot and scream until they stop talking."

Oh, for goodness' sake, I've seen people claim others are calling them bigots about 10 times more often than I've seen people actually being called bigots, at this point.

The rule of the right appears to be, "If someone disputes your source, claim you're being called a bigot regardless of whether anyone said that, until your sources are taken at face value".