Megathread Insane Parents of "Transgender" Kids - Parents who push a transgender identity on their children

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
And at the same time, we're pushing girls to abandon any feminine characteristics and try to be like boys. The game plan has to make all of us so confused and miserable in our own bodies that we don't have the energy to fight for any meaningful change. I can't think of any other reason why the 1% (and their proxies -- politicians) would be pushing all this crap so hard.

Oh, come on now. Society still pressures all women and girls to look like porn stars and supermodels with hairless bodies and permanent full-face makeup at all times. (The ones pressured to "try to be like boys" are girls and women who are gender non-conforming, ie they don't embrace the Instagram "every girl needs to look like a photoshopped Kardashian" trend.) The recent push to get more girls into STEM fields and quit the nonsense about girls all being emotional artists who just can't math/science is not the same thing as trying to make little girls like boys, because little girls were never like what everyone was trying to make them in the first place.

You could very easily say that society wants girls to fit into one of two niches, though: Pornified hairless supermodels with body dysmorphia and eating disorders who spend all their time putting on makeup, doing their hair, etc., and sterilized tomboys with severe medical problems and early deaths. Your conclusion is right - it is done so we don't have the energy to fight for meaningful change - but they're not trying to accomplish that by masculinizing girls, they're trying to do it by feminizing them even more, and if they refuse to be feminized then they are punished with transition, medicalization, sterilization and death.
 
Last edited:
They're keeping the superficial femininity, because it's insanely lucrative to keep women consuming products, plus the dudes who run these companies still need attractive chicks to bang. So yes, in a very superficial pro-consumption way femininity will still be pushed. However, even the most woke female led corporation would have a nuclear level chimpout if pressured into providing generous maternity leave to female employees, and a number of them would rather offer egg-freezing services to their female employees than deal with motherhood in any way. The ideal female employee is the XX version of the nu-male bugman, except instead of spending their pitiful income on Steam sales, electronic gadgets, and Marvel shit, they'll spend it on beauty products, travel, and an ever expanding industry catering to "self-care." Live in a pod and eat bugs, don't reproduce, make money for international tech and finance conglomerates, keep voting for the party that wants to troon out kids so you'll be on "the right side of history," but wear makeup and heels while doing it rather than having a soybeard and superhero t-shirt.
 
I don't think thottery is actually very feminine at all.
It's feminine in the same way childless male gymrats who jerk off to lesbo porn and think getting laid a lot is the peak of male existence is masculine; it's very surface level form of gendered behavior that lends itself well to individual hedonism while not contributing anything of real value to society or future generations.
 
Oh, come on now. Society still pressures all women and girls to look like porn models and supermodels with hairless bodies and permanent full-face makeup at all times. (The ones pressured to "try to be like boys" are girls and women who are gender non-conforming, ie they don't embrace the Instagram "every girl needs to look like a photoshopped Kardashian" trend.) The recent push to get more girls into STEM fields and quit the nonsense about girls all being emotional artists who just can't math/science is not the same thing as trying to make little girls like boys, because little girls were never like what everyone was trying to make them in the first place.

You could very easily say that society wants girls to fit into one of two niches, though: Pornified hairless supermodels with body dysmorphia and eating disorders who spend all their time putting on makeup, doing their hair, etc., and sterilized tomboys with severe medical problems and early deaths. Your conclusion is right - it is done so we don't have the energy to fight for meaningful change - but they're not trying to accomplish that by masculinizing girls, they're trying to do it by feminizing them even more, and if they refuse to be feminized then they are punished with transition, medicalization, sterilization and death.
I was talking more about how they push women to "lean in" at work, the idea that staying at home taking care of babies is "slavery". I agree that there is a pornified version of external appearance that is still pushed, but there has been a drift lately towards beauty standards that make women look more like troons than naturally feminine. Think the Kardashians (who are at least 50% silicone and the best passing troons like Blair White most resemble) and the beauty bloggers that teach make up tricks like contouring, etc. that are the exact same techniques drag queens use. On a man it helps give a caricature of a woman's face -- on a woman's face it just makes her look, well, like a drag queen. I don't think that is coincidental.

When I worked, my female boss gave me a book on how to communicate like a man at work. I know she was genuinely just trying to help me get promoted, but the message was clear: you need to be more like a man to get ahead. Rather than pushing the idea that different communication styles are okay and that men should adapt and respect a woman's communication style -- the male is put up as the ideal and women are supposed to change to adopt that because it is the "superior" way to do things.

And I would never say that a push to get girls to go into STEM is trying to masculinize them because girls can do math and science. They don't have to stop being feminine to enjoy those things or be good at them.

So, yes, there is a lot that is pushing women to become more like men. And some of the pushing comes from feminists who think that anything traditionally feminine is oppressive and who believe that ONLY the male roles have value. They spend all their energy on opening up the "valuable" male roles to women and, instead of demanding that women's roles be equally valued and respected, they turn around and denigrate any woman who chooses to embrace those roles. In other words, they look down on women's work just as much as men do. Some progress.
 
I was talking more about how they push women to "lean in" at work, the idea that staying at home taking care of babies is "slavery". I agree that there is a pornified version of external appearance that is still pushed, but there has been a drift lately towards beauty standards that make women look more like troons than naturally feminine. Think the Kardashians (who are at least 50% silicone and the best passing troons like Blair White most resemble) and the beauty bloggers that teach make up tricks like contouring, etc. that are the exact same techniques drag queens use. On a man it helps give a caricature of a woman's face -- on a woman's face it just makes her look, well, like a drag queen. I don't think that is coincidental.

When I worked, my female boss gave me a book on how to communicate like a man at work. I know she was genuinely just trying to help me get promoted, but the message was clear: you need to be more like a man to get ahead. Rather than pushing the idea that different communication styles are okay and that men should adapt and respect a woman's communication style -- the male is put up as the ideal and women are supposed to change to adopt that because it is the "superior" way to do things.

And I would never say that a push to get girls to go into STEM is trying to masculinize them because girls can do math and science. They don't have to stop being feminine to enjoy those things or be good at them.

So, yes, there is a lot that is pushing women to become more like men. And some of the pushing comes from feminists who think that anything traditionally feminine is oppressive and who believe that ONLY the male roles have value. They spend all their energy on opening up the "valuable" male roles to women and, instead of demanding that women's roles be equally valued and respected, they turn around and denigrate any woman who chooses to embrace those roles. In other words, they look down on women's work just as much as men do. Some progress.

Thank you for explaining, I definitely see your point better now. I think a large part of that is because a lot of women - especially powerful women - have internalized the societal message that women are lesser, that being like a woman is like choosing to be inferior, etc. That doesn't mean all of society wants women to be unfeminine - there is a massive chunk of society, mostly male, that embraces feminine gender roles and demands all women conform to them, to the benefit of the men and at the expense of those women.

I think it's important to remember that femininity is a set of societal stereotypical gender roles, not something that is inherent to women at birth. We aren't born knowing to be more polite, demure, nurturing, whatever than boys. We're taught that, oppressively, from birth. So straying from those gender roles is not something that harms women or forces women to push down some innate self. Now, I'm not saying that we should be pushing women to adhere to male gender roles either, which seems to be what your boss was trying to do. But not being feminine isn't a bad thing. No one is born adhering to feminine gender roles. (Also, "women's roles" are not innate. Again, they are learned and taught. Treating them as innate is... terrible and misogynistic. No woman is born wanting to spend her life picking up a man's shit.)

As for staying at home with babies, the reason that is seen poorly these days is because women who quit working to be stay at home moms are often exploited by their boyfriends/husbands (ie being made to do all the parenting and all the housework and all the shopping, etc, essentially demanding 24/7/365 labor from the woman) and were often left with nothing if their husbands divorced them because they not only had no income and no money of their own (as far as men were concerned, the husband's earned income was his money, not hers) but they also had a giant blank space in their work history that made it difficult to impossible for them to find good jobs when they needed to go back to work after the divorce, dooming them to poverty. Being a SAHM is beneficial for children, and in some ways it may be beneficial for the mother, but it disadvantages the mother in serious ways and historically has led to a lot of women ending up on the streets (often with their kids), impoverished and unable to find work, etc. Additionally, many, many women have and continue to live in abusive homes with husbands who verbally/emotionally abuse them, beat and even rape them because, as SAHMs, they have no income or money and cannot afford to leave their abuser. Those are the reasons that being a stay at home mother is discouraged and looked badly upon, not because no one wants women to be "feminine" anymore. It's because women historically have been exploited, abused and left homeless and jobless by the expectation that they stay at home with their children and have no income or skilled work.

The reasons why many feminists protest the oppressive nature of the "traditionally feminine" and encourage women to pursue "male" roles is because traditional femininity WAS in fact oppressive. Traditional femininity meant women having no value as human beings on their own merit but only having value as the possessions of men (first their fathers and then their husbands). Traditional femininity meant women being unable to work and earn income, being trapped in abusive homes and relationships because they had nowhere to go and no means of providing for themselves. Traditional femininity meant being forced to give birth over and over again whether you wanted to or not and being treated as if you only lived to provide and care for children for a man. Traditional femininity meant not being able to own property, have a bank account or credit card, socialize freely, etc. In many parts of the world, traditional femininity meant and still means having your genitals mutilated ritually, having your breasts ironed flat, being trapped in a tiny hut outside of your home every month when you have your period to prevent your "sullying" the family home, not being allowed to go out without a male chaperone, not being able to show your face or hair or ankles, and so on. Do you think women should want those things? Male roles have always granted far more freedom than any role or place or idea given to women. Can you fault women for wanting that?

Of course, jobs and roles traditionally considered to belong to women - such as nursing, teaching children, cleaning - should be valued the same as any job and role traditionally considered to belong to men! (And men should be encouraged to take those roles as well! Especially the cleaning one.) But that doesn't mean we have to give value to "traditional femininity" and pretend it wasn't the harmful cage that it was.

Sorry for the feminist sperging. Stuff gets on my nerves and it has been a week.
 
I ... wow. Ok. Clearly I haven't looked in on his stuff in a long time.
He started going a bit weird toward the end of Obama's second term and then was struck by a near-fatal case of TDS, which promoted him to turn on just about everything he believed in up to that point. He's still a big free speech advocate... mostly.
 
We aren't born knowing to be more polite, demure, nurturing, whatever than boys

But, that's kind of my point -- what is wrong with being polite, demure, nurturing? I think those are GOOD traits to have and would like it if more boys/men had them, too.

We are still pursuing ideal traits and behavior that have been deemed "good" because they have traditionally been the traits of men. Society still values those things. Training women to be more aggressive, assertive, whatever doesn't change that these are still traditionally masculine values that are being pushed. And they are traditionally masculine because they were valued by men.

Maybe I'm just more radical in a different way. I don't want girls to just be able to be assertive at work and have casual sex just like a man -- I want those things traditionally identified as feminine values to be what we all aspire to. I think diplomacy, cooperation, politeness, empathy, etc. are better avenues to building a better society, not impediments.
 
LOL so the WP predictably says that this is all lies by right-wing bigots.


There is little that Jeffrey Younger and Anne Georgulas agree on about one of their twins.
To start: Is the 7-year-old transgender?
It’s a question that has divided the Coppell, Tex., parents — on how Luna, who was named James at birth, should be dressed to school and wear their hair. On whether the child should receive gender-affirming care, which could eventually lead to medical treatment to delay puberty. On which parent should get to live with the twins, and who should have a say in decisions over their health.
At least one of those conflicts was resolved on Tuesday, as a jury in Dallas effectively granted Georgulas sole custody of Luna in a deeply personal case of gender identity, family conflict and viral misinformation that has lit conservative circles aflame.
Since the start of the trial last week, a number of conservative media outlets have cried foul about the situation, claiming that Georgulas, a pediatrician with a private practice in a Dallas suburb, was going to have Luna “mutilated” or “chemically castrated.” The case even made its way to at least three Texas Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz, who called the child “a pawn in a left-wing political agenda.”
Gov. Greg Abbott (R), meanwhile, said late on Wednesday that state agencies were looking into the situation. Neither office immediately responded to a request for comment. Attorneys for both parents also did not immediately respond.
But as Younger turned the parents’ fight into one over irreversible medical procedures, experts on health care for transgender children told The Washington Post that Georgulas’s approach to the child would not involve any kind of surgery or hormones for years.
“Many people wrongly assume that prepubescent transgender or gender-diverse children will receive medical interventions,” Katherine Kuvalanka, a social work professor at Miami University in Ohio, said in an email to The Washington Post. “The only interventions for young children is affirmation and acceptance for who they are.”
In its 11-to-1 decision, a jury all but gave Georgulas the right to sign off on any medical and psychological decisions. If a judge upholds that decision on Thursday, the verdict would end a bitter, two-year saga between the parents, who had their brief marriage annulled over their child’s gender identity, a case that wades deep into thorny, polarized and little-known questions about the impact of medical transitions on young children.
It all began, Younger says on his blog, on the twins’ third birthday, when Luna expressed a desire to be a girl.
At that point, the father was paying maximum child support and had standard custody in Texas: He saw the twins once a week for two hours and had them sleep over at his apartment two weekends a month. They spent the rest of their time with Georgulas, who had noticed that the child, known by the name James at the time, wanted to wear dresses and look like the female characters from the Disney movie “Frozen."
Georgulas took Luna to see a therapist, who diagnosed the child with gender dysphoria — a mismatch between the gender assigned at birth and the one they identified with. From there, the therapist laid out steps on how to make the child feel affirmed, like letting Luna paint their nails and putting them in a dress, as the mother did when the twins turned 5.
But Younger has repeatedly told a different story in interviews with conservative media outlets, including LifeSiteNews, a website run by a Canadian antiabortion organization that advocates for “traditional family values” and against same-sex marriage.
“James presents as a boy with me and he presents as a girl with his mom,” Younger said to the website last month. “He gets dressed as a boy at his mother’s home and he comes out to me as a boy. That means that he’s comfortable as a boy at his mother’s home.”
Younger charged that Georgulas had been pressuring Luna to want to use female pronouns. He cut the child’s hair, put the child in boys’ clothes and continued calling them James.
In August 2018, Georgulas filed for a restraining order to block Younger from entering the twins’ school or telling other parents or students “that the gender of Luna is different than a girl named Luna.”
She also tried to enroll their child in gender transition therapy at GENECIS, a pediatric clinic for transgender children in Dallas and the first one like it in the Southwest. (Representatives for the clinic did not immediately answer a request for comment on Wednesday night.)
But Laura Edwards-Leeper, a clinical psychologist at Pacific University, said that for someone of Luna’s age, gender-affirming care would not include any kind of medical intervention until they hit puberty. Even then, she said, it’s not an automatic procedure.
After a mental-health evaluation and discussion with parents, it might encompass a range of activities to help “the child to live as their authentic gender, and with their preferred gender expression, at any given point in time, without a presumption about their future gender identity,” she said.
For a 7-year-old, that might mean speaking to experts and potentially helping them through a social transition, which might include changing their clothes, hairstyle or pronouns. At around ages 10 to 13, parents, health professionals and the child might decide to take puberty blockers, which delay the development of secondary sex characteristics, like facial hair or breasts.
Those can be stopped at any time, and puberty continues as it would normally. “It is only irreversible if the adults in the child’s life make it irreversible,” Edwards-Leeper told The Post. “If the adults can stay open to whatever trajectory the child has, then it’s completely reversible.”
Younger, however, said that a tactic of “watchful waiting” would be more prudent for Luna instead. Because he still had custody, his objections meant that the clinic said it could not take Luna on as a client, LifeSiteNews and other outlets reported.
Kuvalanka, however, said the “watchful waiting” approach can be harmful when a parent is withholding acceptance, and that tactic has been deemed “outdated” by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Around the time she filed the restraining order, Georgulas also tried to alter the terms of what is essentially Texas’s version of joint custody. She wanted Younger to affirm the child’s gender identity, requiring him to call her Luna and use female pronouns, and prevent him from making them spend time with those who did otherwise.
In response, Younger made a request of his own: a petition for full custody over the twins. Launching an Internet campaign to #ProtectJamesYounger, which was shared by Cruz and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.), he argued that Georgulas was going to force the child to undergo “chemical castration” once the 7-year-old became old enough to transition.
And he stepped up his calls. In January, on a podcast with a Texas political operative, he described talking with the child on FaceTime, accusing Georgulas of having “dressed him as a drag queen,” with fake eyelashes, makeup and hair covered in glitter.
“This is not just emotional abuse but is the very, most fundamental form of sexual abuse, tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy,” the father said.
The judgment effectively giving the mother sole custody of the twins was unusual, Kuvalanka said, given that juries and judges tend to side with parents who repress a child’s gender identity. But the victory has come with a cost.
Georgulas’s attorneys said the mother has faced threats, harassment, and vandalism, having been “viciously attacked and threatened by complete strangers,” they said in a statement to the Daily Caller, “based on false and untrue statements.”

You gotta love the weasel words. 'Repress a child's gender identity'.

The shitty study they link to cites:

* Shrader v Spain (KAREN ELIZABETH SHRADER vs STEPHEN CRAIG SPAIN ) 1998 - they don't provide any detail on this, but the kid, Nicholas, got a tranny diagnosis around aged 5. The court record provides that the mom was a psycho bitch who tried to run over the dad, turned up late for visitations, refused to talk to the husband, drunk alcohol while driving the kids around, etc. It's not clear from the partial court report what the psychologists were going for at this time, but the WP's linked study says that the mom was the affirming parent. It sounds like she was a crazy alcoholic psycho bitch who trooned out her son and the father & the psychologist were trying to fix that so he didn't grow up to be an axe murderer like all the kids who are forced to wear girls' clothes by their crazy moms.

Convenient to just ignore this case.

* Smith v. Smith (Victoria J vs Kevin M) 2007 - mom wanted to troon out the one of her two sons, aged 9, dad won custody, even though the study claims she was the better parent (this claim is not supported by the court report linked). Mom had planned to troon out the son from the age of 1 or 2, and told him from the age of 4 that he could be a girl. Mom dressed son in bikini and sent him to school as a girl.

* Linda Williams v David Frymire 2012 - mom had a daughter, Jessica, whom she'd had custody of since she was 1. When she was 5 she emailed her ex to say she was trooning her out to be a boy called 'Bridge' (WTF?). Mom is reported by Dad to have falsely "unfounded concerns about her vision, hearing, and speech", as well as "a suspicion that Jessica might have Asperger's Syndrome. " (they always troon out girl spergs)

Mom is literally fucking insane:

Regarding the onset of Linda's belief that Jessica is transgender, David recalled a telephone conversation with Linda in May 2010 after Linda had watched a television special on the topic. David assumed this belief would eventually “run its course” like other concerns she had raised in the past related to Jessica's hearing, vision, and speech, and her suspicion of Asperger's Syndrome. David testified that Linda has bipolar disorder, and stated that he believed the medications she took to treat this illness had affected her ability to drive and make decisions.

Dad's family report that the girl had no transgender feelings, she just didn't like clothes with frills (she's a suspected autist, that's not really a surprise)

Regarding dad David, Dr. Shelton concluded that he did not have any major mental health diagnosis, other than a pre-existing diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. She did note his distress about Jessica's well-being and future, but his distress was at an appropriate level. Dr. Shelton deemed him psychologically fit for parenting, stating that his relationship with his daughter was healthy and positive.

Regarding Linda, Dr. Shelton noted her pre-existing diagnoses of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and bipolar disorder, which Linda reported were under control. Dr.
Shelton believed that mom Linda was “over-responding to the issues she perceives are occurring with Jessica and gender.” In conjunction with this, she recognized Linda's history of over-attending to other cues she perceived regarding Jessica's health over her lifetime. Furthermore, Dr. Shelton noted that while Linda did not meet the criteria for Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, she did share striking similarities with that diagnosis.

Once David rested his case, Linda called several witness to testify. First to testify was Steven Tracy, a former neighbor. Linda and Jessica lived with Mr. Tracy and his wife following her separation from David. He admitted to being a little concerned about Linda's ability to care for Jessica. He also testified that after Linda and Jessica moved out of state, Jessica would stay with him and his wife for visits.


so the mom's own character witness says that she's not a fit mom.

From Jessica, Dr. Berne learned that she liked wearing Power Rangers clothing and that she was angry she could not be “Bridge” all of the time. Dr. Berne stated that Jessica spoke through an animal during the first visit. Regarding Linda's role, Dr. Berne recommended that she should affirm Jessica's gender choice and allow her to “be” without any pushing. She also recommended that Jessica start school as a boy. Following the first visit, Dr. Berne sent a letter dated November 28, 2010, to Jessica's school stating her professional opinion that Jessica had gender identity disorder.

Oh..... So the insane mom found an insane doctor who thinks that a five year old who likes wearing Power Rangers clothing instead of frilly dresses should be allowed to BE a fucking power ranger. That's who 'Bridge' is. There are actual medical professionals who will tell you that your daughter is a fucking power ranger.

I don't know anything about fucking power rangers, but apparently 'Bridge' is the Green one.

1571932783543.png

The writeup at the WP's study suggests that not allowing the mother to transition the child into a cartoon character (does she get the magical powers?) is unfair .

In Williams v. Frymire (2012), a mother, who was awarded sole custody of her 1-year-old child after divorcing the child’s father, lost her designation as the primary residential parent 4 years later. When the mother communicated to the father that the child was transgender and would from then on be affirmed as a boy, the father took the mother to court. Contradicting the opinion of at least two other clinicians that a diagnosis of GIDC was appropriate, a court-appointed psychologist said that “the mother was ‘over-responding’ to the child’s dislike of ‘girly’ things” (Margolis, 2016, p. 145). Following the court-appointed psychologist’s recommendation that “the child ‘should be treated with gender neutrality’” (Margolis, 2016, p. 145), the court named the father as the primary residential parent, disregarding the opinion of the guardian ad litem (GAL) that the mother should retain primary physical custody

* Erik D Johnson v Joy L Johnson 2009 (no link should be RF09-463371 ) - The WP report claims that the tranny-denying dad, who wanted to have religious counselling, and the tranny-affirming mom, who wanted to take the kid to a child gender identity doctor, were awarded joint custody.

This turns out to be a lie, as she got full custody a few months later.

* Kristen L. v. Benjamin W 2014 - Mom told son that girls' toys were for gays, and it was sick to play with girls' toys. Son wanted to play with girls toys, so said he was born in the wrong body. Mom beat up son for playing with girls toys. Dad didn't think like this, and didn't beat up his son, so was awarded custardy.

So in fact:

* 1998 case - insane mom, 21 years ago, at which time the troon landscape was totally different
* 2007 case - also a long time ago in trannying kids terms - first kids to get doped on titty skittles were around this time
* 2009 California case - trooning mom won custody
* 2012 case - psychologist wanted to turn the 5yo girl into a Power Ranger, courts didn't agree
* 2014 case - trooning dad won custody

So essentially two of the last three cases have been won by the tranny side, and we've been subjected to so much tranny propaganda since 2012, the last time the trannies lost, so the implication that this Dad is a piece of shit just because he lost is dumb as fuck.


It's interesting that the WP outright fucking lie

But as Younger turned the parents’ fight into one over irreversible medical procedures, experts on health care for transgender children told The Washington Post that Georgulas’s approach to the child would not involve any kind of surgery or hormones for years.

The kid was born May 7th 2012. He has around 2.5 years till they put him on puberty blockers, which are certainly hormones, and will inevitably lead to titty skittles not long after, then maybe surgery.

2.5 years is not long considering the amount of time cases take to go through the courts.
 
He started going a bit weird toward the end of Obama's second term and then was struck by a near-fatal case of TDS, which promoted him to turn on just about everything he believed in up to that point. He's still a big free speech advocate... mostly.
I mean I guess he’s a free-speech advocate, he just chooses to advocate for it by freely speaking the most exceptional ideas possible.

Edit:
You gotta love the weasel words. 'Repress a child's gender identity'.

This shit gets to me. A child is not a completed organism; anything you tell them or do to them is going to impact their development.

There’s nothing anywhere near conclusive to suggest that all drivers of transgender expression, even dysphoria, are biologically inherent. Yet these issues are never described in medical terms of “I want to decrease the likelihood that my child commits suicide”. It’s always about “letting them be who they really are” as if their mental and physical development is even remotely complete at early ages.

They’re not anyone yet; they’re in a transitory state between conception and adulthood where their body and mind won’t change as rapidly. It’s like saying that a three year old’s desire to stick forks in power outlets and play with his own shit is an innate part of his metaphysical identity. It’s not rational, it’s dogma.

It really bothers me how modern areligious progressives look down on Christianity while adopting a lot of its fundamentals in the worst way possible. God isn’t real, but somehow a fucking toddler has a transcendental identity of being a different gender despite the fact they’re not even remotely close to being fully developed. It’s not “gender-affirming”, it’s the modification of a growing, changing organism based on whim.

They need to fall back on this sweeping, moralistic rhetoric to disguise the fact that we don’t know nearly enough about why this happens or how the best address it; definitely not to the point where we should be making these devastating interventions backed by the power of the state.
 
Last edited:
But, that's kind of my point -- what is wrong with being polite, demure, nurturing? I think those are GOOD traits to have and would like it if more boys/men had them, too.

We are still pursuing ideal traits and behavior that have been deemed "good" because they have traditionally been the traits of men. Society still values those things. Training women to be more aggressive, assertive, whatever doesn't change that these are still traditionally masculine values that are being pushed. And they are traditionally masculine because they were valued by men.

Maybe I'm just more radical in a different way. I don't want girls to just be able to be assertive at work and have casual sex just like a man -- I want those things traditionally identified as feminine values to be what we all aspire to. I think diplomacy, cooperation, politeness, empathy, etc. are better avenues to building a better society, not impediments.

There's nothing wrong with being any of those things, for anyone. But if you're demure at the expense of your own ability to advance in your career or speak up for yourself, it's a problem. If you're polite to the point that you're unable to tell someone to fuck off if they're sexually harassing you, that's a problem. If you're nurturing to the point that you're allowing your partner to be a manbaby and relinquish all household and parenting responsibilities, that's a problem. And that's how women have been socialized to be: Demure, nurturing, polite, etc. to the point of being unable to function normally and instead being put in positions where our socialization leads us to hurt ourselves. Feminine socialization is fucked.

Put another way: Those traits aren't inherently bad, there's nothing inherently wrong with being those things regardless of your sex, but presuming that all women have those traits, presuming that all of those traits are naturally ones that all women are born with, and pressuring women to have and exhibit those traits is wrong. And that's what society does. Hence the push-back.

Why are you so against women being assertive, standing up for themselves, and demanding better? Why do you think women are naturally just supposed to be demure little delicate flowers and if they aren't, they're "imitating men"? Your view of women is pretty messed up if you just assume any woman who doesn't act like a 1950s housewife is trying to be a man instead of, you know, just having a personality other than awful feminine stereotypes that exist for the purpose of preventing women from gaining power and prestige.

Like I said, I don't think women should be pressured to adhere to masculine social roles either, but I also don't think women should be pressured to adhere to feminine social roles that you're arguing for. A woman, just like any human being, can be a collection of any number of traits, good or bad, traditionally feminine or traditionally masculine, and there should be nothing wrong with that.

You can value diplomacy, cooperation, empathy, etc. without calling those things feminine values that women should aspire to and that women are naturally prone to and seeming to argue that these things are somehow opposed to being assertive, supporting your own rights, standing up for yourself, and not supporting oppressive power and social structures that harm women.

ETA: I guess another way to put this is that those arguing for women to be more assertive in the workplace aren't saying "hey women, be like men, because only men speak out when they're being mistreated!" They're saying, "Hey women, learn to overcome your decades of feminine socialization that tells you to keep your mouth shut and be demure and polite and never ask for anything and stand up for yourself." Standing up for oneself is gender neutral. It's not a man thing.
 
Last edited:
But, that's kind of my point -- what is wrong with being polite, demure, nurturing? I think those are GOOD traits to have and would like it if more boys/men had them, too.

We are still pursuing ideal traits and behavior that have been deemed "good" because they have traditionally been the traits of men. Society still values those things. Training women to be more aggressive, assertive, whatever doesn't change that these are still traditionally masculine values that are being pushed. And they are traditionally masculine because they were valued by men.

Maybe I'm just more radical in a different way. I don't want girls to just be able to be assertive at work and have casual sex just like a man -- I want those things traditionally identified as feminine values to be what we all aspire to. I think diplomacy, cooperation, politeness, empathy, etc. are better avenues to building a better society, not impediments.
The only problem is that we will always need men to be men whenever Germany starts acting up.
 
There's nothing wrong with being any of those things, for anyone. But if you're demure at the expense of your own ability to advance in your career or speak up for yourself, it's a problem. If you're polite to the point that you're unable to tell someone to fuck off if they're sexually harassing you, that's a problem. If you're nurturing to the point that you're allowing your partner to be a manbaby and relinquish all household and parenting responsibilities, that's a problem. And that's how women have been socialized to be: Demure, nurturing, polite, etc. to the point of being unable to function normally and instead being put in positions where our socialization leads us to hurt ourselves. Feminine socialization is fucked.

Put another way: Those traits aren't inherently bad, there's nothing inherently wrong with being those things regardless of your sex, but presuming that all women have those traits, presuming that all of those traits are naturally ones that all women are born with, and pressuring women to have and exhibit those traits is wrong. And that's what society does. Hence the push-back.

Why are you so against women being assertive, standing up for themselves, and demanding better? Why do you think women are naturally just supposed to be demure little delicate flowers and if they aren't, they're "imitating men"? Your view of women is pretty messed up if you just assume any woman who doesn't act like a 1950s housewife is trying to be a man instead of, you know, just having a personality other than awful feminine stereotypes that exist for the purpose of preventing women from gaining power and prestige.

Like I said, I don't think women should be pressured to adhere to masculine social roles either, but I also don't think women should be pressured to adhere to feminine social roles that you're arguing for. A woman, just like any human being, can be a collection of any number of traits, good or bad, traditionally feminine or traditionally masculine, and there should be nothing wrong with that.

You can value diplomacy, cooperation, empathy, etc. without calling those things feminine values that women should aspire to and that women are naturally prone to and seeming to argue that these things are somehow opposed to being assertive, supporting your own rights, standing up for yourself, and not supporting oppressive power and social structures that harm women.

ETA: I guess another way to put this is that those arguing for women to be more assertive in the workplace aren't saying "hey women, be like men, because only men speak out when they're being mistreated!" They're saying, "Hey women, learn to overcome your decades of feminine socialization that tells you to keep your mouth shut and be demure and polite and never ask for anything and stand up for yourself." Standing up for oneself is gender neutral. It's not a man thing.
Wow. You have made an awful lot of assumptions about me based on what you think femininity represents.

I didn't advocate for any of those things and suggesting that I did is quite disingenuous of you. To be honest, I've always been a bit of a female chauvinist. I think women do things better than men in a lot of cases. Asking that men change and adopt our ways rather than vice versa makes me a stepford wife apparently. Good to know. I thought that feminism was supposed to be about the right of a woman to choose for herself how she lives her life. I didn't know that some of those choices still make me a bad woman. Damned if you, damned if you don't, I guess.

As for the corporate world, if men focus on the way that I speak or the way that I sit in my chair rather than the work that I do -- that should be their problem, not mine to fix. Sure, I can change to fit into their world, but why should I have to? Either I'm competent and can do the job or I can't. Judge me by the quality of my work --not whether or not I talk like a man. And for the most part, they did. I got promotions and raises. And I was in a male dominated field (computer programming). The only barrier I faced was moving up into management (which I didn't even want to do -- my boss was encouraging me to do it) where it was a boy's club and you had to play by their rules to get there. I had no desire to do that because it is stupid to ask me to act like a man and reward me for it like I'm a trained circus animal. Again, judge me by what I can do. Anything else is retarded and, quite frankly, bad for business.
 
Indeed. Real women don't call anything "gender affirming care". It doesn't "affirm your gender" to have no pubes. Most women don't have brazilianed boxes either.
Well, Jonny Yaniv doesn't really want to be a woman, he wants to be a girl - look at his "transition goals" photos, they're all tweens - and they don't have pubes until they're older than he likes them.
 
Ken white used to stand for something, that's why people care what he has to say. he used to help anyone bullied off of the internet by bullshit lawsuits, but not anymore.

I read the court paper from the divorce, and don't think it is relevant.
tl;dr is
The dad lied about a bunch of things, mostly misrepresenting himself professionally and financially, and lying about previous marriages/relationships. He used push ups as a punishment and didn't empathize about the effect it may have had. There was not any allegation of violence or sexual abuse at any point.

I don't know why anyone is pretending any of this matters. The facts that people have a problem with are agreed upon by both the petitioner and respondent: their child is 7, they do not have a consistent gender presentation, anne has decided to affirm as a girl and the father does not agree, medical transition would sterilize the child.

One of the craziest parts that no one seems to be reporting is that the mom told the cops she was assaulted by the father post-divorce in public place, not knowing that someone else witnessed the events in question. The unseen witness testified at the criminal case and jeff was acquitted. So it isn't like anne is the most honest person in the world or something, she looks like shit at the end of this (and usually everyone does after a nasty divorce).
 
Ken white used to stand for something, that's why people care what he has to say. he used to help anyone bullied off of the internet by bullshit lawsuits, but not anymore.

Ken White basically turned into Generic Twitter Shitlib #76558b after a retarded slap-fight with Vox Day, if memory serves. Went full drama queen, kicked Clark off the site, and started using Zoe Quinn's blockbot; seriously, I think he's blocked more people than Steve Shives at this point. Last I heard, Patrick had started his own Twitter to get away from the sped. I wonder if he and Marc Randazza are still hanging around with this load these days?
 
Ken White basically turned into Generic Twitter Shitlib #76558b after a exceptional slap-fight with Vox Day, if memory serves. Went full drama queen, kicked Clark off the site, and started using Zoe Quinn's blockbot; seriously, I think he's blocked more people than Steve Shives at this point. Last I heard, Patrick had started his own Twitter to get away from the sped. I wonder if he and Marc Randazza are still hanging around with this load these days?
Doubt it, considering the last time Randazza was on he was being lambasted for promoting free speech for those evil alt-right types.

Pity. I liked Popehat's writing, but I guess nothing lasts forever.
 
Back