NationStates

Auzkhia wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:I don't know about that. Some of the TERFs I encountered on this very site unironically hated men. Chess was one of them.

TERFs allied and worked with social conservatives on bathroom bills in the US, and are trying to do the same in the UK. Though it seems unlikely that anti-trans radical feminists and born again Christians would team up, they both have similar perceptions on gender. Cultural feminism and complementarianism both have roles for men and women. Though the terfs claim they want women's empowerment and liberation, however anti-feminist christians say that "Biblical" gender roles for women is women's freedom. Either way, they believe that women have essential traits and roles, and transsexuality does challenge that a bit.

The abolish gender people believe in “essential traits and roles” for women. Right.

South Odreria 2 wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:TERFs allied and worked with social conservatives on bathroom bills in the US, and are trying to do the same in the UK. Though it seems unlikely that anti-trans radical feminists and born again Christians would team up, they both have similar perceptions on gender. Cultural feminism and complementarianism both have roles for men and women. Though the terfs claim they want women's empowerment and liberation, however anti-feminist christians say that "Biblical" gender roles for women is women's freedom. Either way, they believe that women have essential traits and roles, and transsexuality does challenge that a bit.

The abolish gender people believe in “essential traits and roles” for women. Right.

It may sound confusing to you, until you realize that TERFs may claim to want to abolish gender, and they may even actually believe they do, but they really want to redefine and reinforce it along biological essentialist lines.

Grenartia wrote:

Hediacrana wrote:Because we probably all can use a bit of silly fun right now.

FB really lags to the point of non-useability on my computer for some reason.

Kowani wrote:The issue is not so much Islam as it is conservatism, which is using Islam as its vehicle of choice.

Honestly, this.

Kowani wrote:Because Islam is mostly found in countries with extreme poverty, instability and inequality, thank you for playing.

I'd honestly argue any religion having dominance goes hand in hand with conservatism, as well as poverty, instability, and inequality.

Kowani wrote:Shrug. Islam is just like every other religion. When the factors that prevent evolution are omnipresent, then of course it’ll end up being more conservative.

Exactly. There's nothing particularly special about Islam.

That's actually pretty common sociological belief.

Hell, a lot of sociologists say that the US is actually a miracle for how well it's historically done because of the fact that it's the most religious developed country in the world. (Most other developed countries are <50% religious while the US is ~>70%)

South Odreria 2 wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:TERFs allied and worked with social conservatives on bathroom bills in the US, and are trying to do the same in the UK. Though it seems unlikely that anti-trans radical feminists and born again Christians would team up, they both have similar perceptions on gender. Cultural feminism and complementarianism both have roles for men and women. Though the terfs claim they want women's empowerment and liberation, however anti-feminist christians say that "Biblical" gender roles for women is women's freedom. Either way, they believe that women have essential traits and roles, and transsexuality does challenge that a bit.

The abolish gender people believe in “essential traits and roles” for women. Right.

It's like this. And as a non-binary person, They definitely don't appreciate me, or any trans person, they tend say "abolish gender, and only sex matters" it's a real nitpick level kinda argument.

TERF: we are here to abolish the genders

Feminist: oh, so we won't use gendered pronouns anymore?

TERF: no keep those

Feminist: gendered clothing?

TERF: no that's ok

Feminist: segregated bathrooms?

TERF: no those are important

Feminist: so we're going to do something about the gender binary, yeah?
We're going to attack the idea that gender is intrinsically linked to one's anatomy,
and we're going to boost the visibility of trans and intersex people,
who face the most violent consequences of the sex and gender binaries - yes?

TERF: no

Feminist: then what are you going to do, exactly? What is your plan? How are you going to accomplish this?

TERF: abolish gender

Feminist: How?

TERF: abolish it

The Netherlands are planning to remove gender markers on national ID cards. This is an effort to make life easier for non-binary and other transgender people, and research indicated that practical downsides are negligible. Also, Germany is already doing this.

Go Netherlands!

Hediacrana wrote:The Netherlands are planning to remove gender markers on national ID cards. This is an effort to make life easier for non-binary and other transgender people, and research indicated that practical downsides are negligible. Also, Germany is already doing this.

Go Netherlands!

The reason why licenses and passports have gender markers is the same reason why they have weight, height, and eye color, to describe the person, but those are all obsolete because they have a photograph of the person!

Auzkhia wrote:

Hediacrana wrote:The Netherlands are planning to remove gender markers on national ID cards. This is an effort to make life easier for non-binary and other transgender people, and research indicated that practical downsides are negligible. Also, Germany is already doing this.

Go Netherlands!

The reason why licenses and passports have gender markers is the same reason why they have weight, height, and eye color, to describe the person, but those are all obsolete because they have a photograph of the person!

Well that and...sex is not really a great descriptor given that people can pass.

Neutraligon wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:The reason why licenses and passports have gender markers is the same reason why they have weight, height, and eye color, to describe the person, but those are all obsolete because they have a photograph of the person!

Well that and...sex is not really a great descriptor given that people can pass.

My passport and driver's license have a big ol' F for sex. I suppose it's more accurate than the M.

Though my state does give out an X, but I got my license sorted before they started that.

Auzkhia wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:I don't know about that. Some of the TERFs I encountered on this very site unironically hated men. Chess was one of them.

TERFs allied and worked with social conservatives on bathroom bills in the US, and are trying to do the same in the UK. Though it seems unlikely that anti-trans radical feminists and born again Christians would team up, they both have similar perceptions on gender. Cultural feminism and complementarianism both have roles for men and women. Though the terfs claim they want women's empowerment and liberation, however anti-feminist christians say that "Biblical" gender roles for women is women's freedom. Either way, they believe that women have essential traits and roles, and transsexuality does challenge that a bit.

Literally 2-3 days ago I saw a TERF cite a LifeSiteNews article.

Is GC really cancelled in Britain?

A proposed anti-trans rule would let homeless shelters judge who’s a woman

So there we are, a new rule that uses stereotypes about female presentation to weed out who is and who isn't a transwoman.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Is GC really cancelled in Britain?

Unfortunately, not, but they are cancelled on Reddit.

Vassenor wrote:A proposed anti-trans rule would let homeless shelters judge who’s a woman

So there we are, a new rule that uses stereotypes about female presentation to weed out who is and who isn't a transwoman.

TERFs: "We hate stereotypes about women."
Also TERFs: "Judge who is a woman based on stereotypes about women."

Auzkhia wrote:

Hediacrana wrote:The Netherlands are planning to remove gender markers on national ID cards. This is an effort to make life easier for non-binary and other transgender people, and research indicated that practical downsides are negligible. Also, Germany is already doing this.

Go Netherlands!

The reason why licenses and passports have gender markers is the same reason why they have weight, height, and eye color, to describe the person, but those are all obsolete because they have a photograph of the person!

Notably, neither my license nor my passport has a weight, height, or eye colour entry. Probably for thath exact reason (plus how much all of those can vary).

Salandriagado wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:The reason why licenses and passports have gender markers is the same reason why they have weight, height, and eye color, to describe the person, but those are all obsolete because they have a photograph of the person!

Notably, neither my license nor my passport has a weight, height, or eye colour entry. Probably for thath exact reason (plus how much all of those can vary).

Exactly, it's not necessary anymore, if you don't know, you could just ask, because self-identification is how you can really know.

Vassenor wrote:A proposed anti-trans rule would let homeless shelters judge who’s a woman

So there we are, a new rule that uses stereotypes about female presentation to weed out who is and who isn't a transwoman.

Ben Carson, Dick Police.

Vassenor wrote:A proposed anti-trans rule would let homeless shelters judge who’s a woman

So there we are, a new rule that uses stereotypes about female presentation to weed out who is and who isn't a transwoman.

If we're going to divide homeless shelters on the basis of gender in the first place, it does make sense to have a higher hurdle than simply claiming a particular gender identity. Presentation plays an important role in the social construction and function of gender but, by no means, should that be the only standard. I'm pointing this out because putting someone who presents as a man in a women's shelter creates a lot of the same problems that putting someone who presents as a woman in a men's shelter does. That said, you shouldn't bar someone who presents as a woman from a women's shelter simply because of an Adam's apple or some other conventionally masculine characteristic, whether that woman is cis or trans.

Anybody who argues for abolishing marriage or gender unironically needs to find better things to do with their time prioritize better. Watch paint dry maybe. Seriously.

If people want to formalize their relationship, that's not your problem, especially not if you're a woman, who have been historically forced into marriages through any number of dirtbag ways and when you didn't even get a choice, in complete ignorance of the history of formalized relationships and how the deprivation of choice screwed only disenfranchised minorities over.

Now that people might actually benefit from it and give some semblance of beauty back to the bullshit "sanctity of marriage" nonsense conservative zealots have babbled about for centuries, NOW you want it abolished?

Let people make their own choices.

Anyway, what does GCIsCancelled mean? Literally I google it and this is the only result XD

The Rich Port wrote:Anybody who argues for abolishing marriage or gender unironically needs to find better things to do with their time prioritize better. Watch paint dry maybe. Seriously.

If people want to formalize their relationship, that's not your problem, especially not if you're a woman, who have been historically forced into marriages through any number of dirtbag ways and when you didn't even get a choice, in complete ignorance of the history of formalized relationships and how the deprivation of choice screwed only disenfranchised minorities over.

Now that people might actually benefit from it and give some semblance of beauty back to the bullshit "sanctity of marriage" nonsense conservative zealots have babbled about for centuries, NOW you want it abolished?

Let people make their own choices.

Those sorts really need a better hobby. Especially if they're older than 15. Which, nowadays, it seems they usually are...

Anyway, what does GCIsCancelled mean? Literally I google it and this is the only result XD

I think it's in reference to how, a while ago, during a sort of mass subreddit banning, r/GenderCritical was banned. A bunch of other big subs got banned too, like T_D and CTH.

Proctopeo wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:Anybody who argues for abolishing marriage or gender unironically needs to find better things to do with their time prioritize better. Watch paint dry maybe. Seriously.

If people want to formalize their relationship, that's not your problem, especially not if you're a woman, who have been historically forced into marriages through any number of dirtbag ways and when you didn't even get a choice, in complete ignorance of the history of formalized relationships and how the deprivation of choice screwed only disenfranchised minorities over.

Now that people might actually benefit from it and give some semblance of beauty back to the bullshit "sanctity of marriage" nonsense conservative zealots have babbled about for centuries, NOW you want it abolished?

Let people make their own choices.

Those sorts really need a better hobby. Especially if they're older than 15. Which, nowadays, it seems they usually are...

Anyway, what does GCIsCancelled mean? Literally I google it and this is the only result XD

I think it's in reference to how, a while ago, during a sort of mass subreddit banning, r/GenderCritical was banned. A bunch of other big subs got banned too, like T_D and CTH.

Ah, good fucking riddance. Reddit has enough cancer and not enough r/MarySue.

The Rich Port wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Those sorts really need a better hobby. Especially if they're older than 15. Which, nowadays, it seems they usually are...


I think it's in reference to how, a while ago, during a sort of mass subreddit banning, r/GenderCritical was banned. A bunch of other big subs got banned too, like T_D and CTH.

Ah, good fucking riddance. Reddit has enough cancer and not enough r/MarySue.

Someday they might excise the most cancerous subreddits, but for now, removing some of the bad ones is something I guess.

The Rich Port wrote:Anybody who argues for abolishing marriage or gender unironically needs to find better things to do with their time prioritize better. Watch paint dry maybe. Seriously.

If people want to formalize their relationship, that's not your problem, especially not if you're a woman, who have been historically forced into marriages through any number of dirtbag ways and when you didn't even get a choice, in complete ignorance of the history of formalized relationships and how the deprivation of choice screwed only disenfranchised minorities over.

Now that people might actually benefit from it and give some semblance of beauty back to the bullshit "sanctity of marriage" nonsense conservative zealots have babbled about for centuries, NOW you want it abolished?

Let people make their own choices.

Anyway, what does GCIsCancelled mean? Literally I google it and this is the only result XD

Abolish gender is at best a utopian pipe dream or at worst a TERF dogwhistle.

Marriage? Abolishing it would at the very least mean that there is no longer any legal and fiscal recognition of it. But, it seems that the legal institution, at the very least, of marriage ought to include more types of marriages between all sorts of adults, especially disabled individuals who could lose their benefits, and perhaps polyamorous relationships.

Auzkhia wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:Anybody who argues for abolishing marriage or gender unironically needs to find better things to do with their time prioritize better. Watch paint dry maybe. Seriously.

If people want to formalize their relationship, that's not your problem, especially not if you're a woman, who have been historically forced into marriages through any number of dirtbag ways and when you didn't even get a choice, in complete ignorance of the history of formalized relationships and how the deprivation of choice screwed only disenfranchised minorities over.

Now that people might actually benefit from it and give some semblance of beauty back to the bullshit "sanctity of marriage" nonsense conservative zealots have babbled about for centuries, NOW you want it abolished?

Let people make their own choices.

Anyway, what does GCIsCancelled mean? Literally I google it and this is the only result XD

Abolish gender is at best a utopian pipe dream or at worst a TERF dogwhistle.

Marriage? Abolishing it would at the very least mean that there is no longer any legal and fiscal recognition of it. But, it seems that the legal institution, at the very least, of marriage ought to include more types of marriages between all sorts of adults, especially disabled individuals who could lose their benefits, and perhaps polyamorous relationships.

I never hear that outside of people dog whistling it, frankly.

Never mind nobody ever actually has a plan for accomplishing it, and nobody ever engages in the truthful reasons for abolishing it, such as it being the government encouraging reproduction and conservative values, especially when it is restricted only to heterosexuals.

I believe the expression is "there is no such thing as liberating a fish from water."

Grenartia wrote:

New Bremerton wrote:Eight consecutive ignored posts in a row. That's a record. Anyway, some transphobic, religious BS coming out of Malaysia:

Minister gives 'full licence' for authorities to act against transgenders

A Malaysian Islamist bigot minister seeks to round up and "re-educate" trans Malaysians Uighur-style. Here's what they're so offended about:

Image censored by MKini likely out of fear of legal repercussions.

Like *totally* pornographic and indecent.

Yikes. What the fuck is wrong in Malaysia?

From what little I know about the country, quite a lot.

Auzkhia wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:Anybody who argues for abolishing marriage or gender unironically needs to find better things to do with their time prioritize better. Watch paint dry maybe. Seriously.

If people want to formalize their relationship, that's not your problem, especially not if you're a woman, who have been historically forced into marriages through any number of dirtbag ways and when you didn't even get a choice, in complete ignorance of the history of formalized relationships and how the deprivation of choice screwed only disenfranchised minorities over.

Now that people might actually benefit from it and give some semblance of beauty back to the bullshit "sanctity of marriage" nonsense conservative zealots have babbled about for centuries, NOW you want it abolished?

Let people make their own choices.

Anyway, what does GCIsCancelled mean? Literally I google it and this is the only result XD

Abolish gender is at best a utopian pipe dream or at worst a TERF dogwhistle.

Marriage? Abolishing it would at the very least mean that there is no longer any legal and fiscal recognition of it. But, it seems that the legal institution, at the very least, of marriage ought to include more types of marriages between all sorts of adults, especially disabled individuals who could lose their benefits, and perhaps polyamorous relationships.

i find it amusing that the person who thinks one can be a non-binary lesbian (or indeed non-binary) believes abolishing gender is a problem. take a look in the mirror, your rhetoric may be different, but the result is the same