u/frogmon3

a lot of nobel prize winners come from rich families so its not like art is the only thing people do when they dont have to worry about bills

not to take the joke too seriously but this is a good way to develop alcoholism

contrarianism is not transgressive and lefties arent transgressive for no reason. society will disapprove of u shooting a healthcare ceo or saying the n word, but one of those hurts powerful people and one hurts the grandchildren of slaves.

anyway u can enjoy ur heterosexual gender roleplay fetish all u want, just dont force other people to participate

we need more cop free zones fr

pretty sure thats bc a lot of trans women get arrested for crimes around prostitution

the nature of revolutionary movements is to get coopted by hegemonic power structures. with feminism this means white woman grievance politics that ask nothing of them and outsource all their struggles. real feminism is trucking on in academia but its hard to get a lot of white women to care now that they have such proximity to power

feminist theory, especially recently, is very intersectional. the problem is that the average person a doesn't really understand intersectionality or critical theory and latches onto a narrative that explains their personal struggles. inevitably the hegemonic power structure dilutes the movement and sells it back to the most privileged members of a group (in this case cishet white women) as grievance politics with no real challenge to systems of power. feminists/leftists often use the term "white feminism" to refer to feminism that lacks intersectionality and mostly supports existing power structures just with rich cishet white women equal to their husbands at the top. this is also the same reason "appealing to the working class" in america now means telling white men that immigrants and the trans are the problem.

good for u i guess?

i mean for one thing starting a business and failing doesn't make u homeless. in many models u can still make more money, just not as much more because some of it goes to the needy. in other models the government heavily supports new businesses, or the government runs every business. in anarchism no one owns a business, the community just comes together to fill an unmet need. or maybe starting new businesses just isn't actually a big priority and the few people driven to do it anyway are enough.

communists and socialists don't think they have a magic potion. they believe in a new political model and u assume no one has tried to answer the obvious questions that system presents. its a new system with new problems and new solutions. capitalism cant solve homelessness and poverty after hundreds of years but we shouldn't try anything else because what if that system has problems too?

i think the fact that u risked ur body and mind for a probably pretty stupid war bc it gave u access to resources u otherwise wouldn't have access to at 19 kinda just supports the idea that young people are exploitable. replace ur government with an older person with an established career and ehhhh kinda yucky

have u ever killed something larger than a fish? why do u assume u could easily kill any human that's fighting for their life? i don't even think i could kill a medium sized dog without getting pretty fucked up

remember how the french revolution led to napoleon? a new political system rarely works on the first or tenth try, even without global capitalism fighting against it. we don't know the best way to do it and transitions are inherently unstable times.

its also worth noting that most big socialist projects (eg russia and china) were extremely poor and preindustrial when their revolutions happened, while according to marx communism comes after capitalism. the CCP today basically says this is why the great leap forward was an atrocity and is trying to speedrun capitalist growth to get to communism

under capitalism theres a 99% chance u get paid less than the value u provide to a company. hence, the company profits. marxists call that surplus value. so yes, u will get less than the value of ur labour under socialism or capitalism, but the idea is that under socialism more of that goes to helping people who cant provide for themselves than to ur boss

ur assuming there's a guy assigning labour and assuming that maximizing the output of each worker is a priority, which is actually pretty capitalist. the ideal is that people don't have to push themselves to their limit. that people can voluntarily contribute what they're able and willing for the good of their community and because that is their share of the labour that provides for them as well.

there are plenty of schools of thought on how much that would decrease productivity, whether people who neglect their responsibility need to be punished and how, but its kinda expected that total productivity would fall, and that thats kinda fine because comunism isnt supposed to be a consumerist machine with fast fashion and planned obselescence.

i dont think im being rude, and im not centering my pain over others since this whole post was about trans women. im literally just explaining how this term is weaponized against trans people. the fact that it originates in sociology isnt that relevant to the real conversation here because the context is it being used in bad faith, just like race science often distorts real data to justify preconceived bigotry.

what is ur goal here? to say ur original comment wasnt dismissive? what were u trying to say in that comment?

the NDP are opposed to the temporary foreign worker program

yes, u didnt say that, it was the first comment in this thread. op then explained that its not online discourse and the "male socialization" concept (as it is often used about trans women) leads to transphobia irl. the first commentor replied arguing no, they just dont see trans women as women. u replied "exactly. its not like if there were different socialization terfs would suddenly be accepting." do u see how this thread and ur comment in it amount to dismissing trans womens concerns around a specific transphobic narrative, even if u werent previously aware of that narrative?

its very true that white trans women are still white. it is hard for white people to learn to shut up and listen when black people talk about things they dont experience, it took me a long time to start listening and im sure i still have a lot to improve. but im going to flip that on u for a sec and say u need to listen when trans women talk about their experiences too. i am telling u, as a trans woman, that u stepped into a conversation u didnt have the context for and made a comment that was dismissive of a very real form of transphobia used against us. i am not accusing u of being malicious, i don't want to be adversarial, i just want u to understand why it was a tad problematic.

im sure im starting to sound preachy but i just wanna be clear

im sorry but saying its "terminally online infighting" and ur first comment are very dismissive of a real issue trans women face. i dont think ive been rude or blamed u for not understanding the context but if i came off that way i apologize. but now u do know the context

the term is misused/weaponized so much that many trans women have a visceral reaction to it. i would be very uncomfortable getting thru a conversation about my childhood if that was the term someone decided to use, even tho i understand its academic use. saying i was male socialized feels wrong and doesnt adequately externalize what happened to me or reflect how disconnected i was from my environment and the expectations on me. id personally avoid using the term when talking about trans people to honour that reality. i heard a very wordy alternative once like prescribed gendered environment or smth that i felt more accurately reflected the trans experience but i can never remember what it was.

except a significant portion if not the majority of online discourse about "gendered socialization" is transphobic pseudoscience entirely removed from scholarly context, which is what oop is responding to. u and beduinzpouste in this thread seem to be arguing that trans women pushing back against such rhetoric is "terminally online infighting" because transphobes are transphobic regardless of how trans women are truly socialized, which seems to be suggesting this rhetoric isnt worth fighting. i can only assume u arent aware of how commonly the concept is misused and weaponized against trans women because like... it really isnt any different than using fancy science words to say black ppl are inherently more violent

the issue is that when people talk about socialization as something u have rather than something that happened to u it just becomes a sociology-washed form of bioessentialism. the experience of being socialized as a boy is fundamentally different for a boy than a girl. the things u internalize from it and the ways it shapes u are different. a really easy example is that trans women gravitate more towards programming and solo gaming like speedrunning rather than sports or competitive team shooters. yea, "male socialization" steers them towards "male" interests, but at the same time their transness steers them away from many "male" environments that make them uncomfortable. any discussion of a trans persons "gendered socialization" that doesnt acknowledge how much their transness affects their experience, their behaviour, and in turn their continued treatment/socialization by society is inherently flattening of the trans experience and denies them their subjectivity.

this is like saying race science is academic infighting because people a racist anyway. "male socialization" as its used in popular discourse is a pseudo-academic theory used to legitimize the idea that trans women are dangerous. it is extremely harmful and does creep into progressive spaces

its so much easier to believe in an evil cabal of pedophiles than to accept that our public institutions are failing

i dont wanna see war. leave me out of it

emotional regulation. i have bpd and i feel like sometimes i go thru an average persons worst break up worth of emotions on a random tuesday (hyperbole)