Nykysnottrans said:
BTW, isn't this Mia the same trannie that Oliver
hooked up "collaborated" with after the break-up with Nyk?
This could actually be her. Maybe it's a different person, but there aren't probably many troons called Mia in the breadtubesphere. I've found Mia probably more than a year ago and just thought he/she is a cheap Ikea copy of Contrapoints. I do remember that some BreadTubers like Peter Coffin (well, former breadtuber) and Oli sucked his/her girl penis in the comments. And since Mia gives me similar vibes like Nyk it wouldn't surprise me that it is this Mia Oliver had a boner for.
I even remember this video (if it's the one I mean). He complains about how the awareness of troons in leftist communities made him more insecure about his appearance and that people clock him now faster than before. You really have to love troons. When you don't give them enough attention, they complain about being erased and not validated. If you give them attention they don't want it because "cis people love to talk over troons" and "now more people know what trans is and clock me better!".
Just go on, troons, the clock is ticking. Your acceptance is decreasing quickly, especially among young girls who you envy so much.
? they seem to be rare to find but everyone involved in politics talks about them as if they are 90% of the population, why is that? how did it start? I'm just curious because I'm tired of people putting them on video games, TV, movies, books, sports, laws, when fully transitioned ones are quite uncommon (at least where I've lived).
People are often puzzled why a small minority like troons can be so overrepresented in our daily life. This is because we are told from a young age on that majorities rule the world, whereas minorities have almost no power (except the rich, of course)
However, in reality loud and intolerant minorities often lead social change, given that there is some asymmetry in rules.
People often compare homosexuality and troonerism, even though both things have very different dynamics.
We can use religion first as an example and then compare it to homoxeuality and troonerism.
Christians were once a small minority in Rome, yet later on they were the majority. How did this happen? It happened because Christians were a small, loud and intolerant minority, whereas the pantheist majority was less extreme about their religion.
For example a asymmetry in rules: Pagans could accept Jesus as another god in their pantheon, however Christians are not allowed to worship anybody but Jesus. The asymmetry here is: Pagans can worship Jesus as well, but Christians can't worship any god except Jesus. So what happens after a time? The amount of Christian increases (since it's no sin for Pagans to worship Jesus, so they're somewhat already on the way to become a Christian), whereas the amount of Pagan decreases (Paganism isn't tolerated by Christians and hence with every converted Christian the acceptance for Pagans decreases). Now Christians only had to increase their numbers over the years and it wasn't long until they were the majority and could wield their power even better. We often hear that Christians were persecuted in Rome, which is true. But why? Because they were violent, intolerant and not very nice towards pagans. This is similiar to the reason why Muslims aren't very accepted in Western societies or India: they're (mostly wahabbis/sunnis) violent, intolerant and not very nice towards people with different beliefs.
The same thing happened to Christianity because of Islam. We have here an asymmetry as well: Christians can marry Muslims, but Muslims (especially Muslim women) can't marry Christians if they don't convert to Islam. And once you are a Muslim, deconverting is punished by death. This is how Egypt and other Middle Eastern and North African countries became Muslim, the Christians were rarely forced to convert, but due to marriage and priviliges by becoming a Muslim people became step by step Muslim until they were the majority. The same could potentially happen in the West: Secular people can marry Muslims, but Muslims rarely marry non-Muslims. Now you just need some individuals every year that convert to Islam and you can have a Muslim majority faster than many people think.
This happens even between different denominations of Islam: Sunni Muslims are less tolerant than Shia Muslims. Many people in the West think that Irak is a country with a Sunni majority, but actualy it has a Shia majority like Iran. The aggressiveness and intolerance of Sunni Muslims made them the de facto leaders of the Country, even though they are only 30% of the population. Politics works actually similiar. Extremists tend to vote only extreme, but it's possible that some moderates also vote extreme sometimes. This is how extreme ideologies like fascism and communism can overthrow an entire state. It's not because they're a majority, it's because they were loud and intolerant enough. BreadTube is actually a joke because of this: They all claimed to be radicals, but almost all of them voted for Biden when they feared losing. This isn't how a real extremist votes. Look at troons, they will never compromise their positions, even when it would actually benefit them.
So how about homosexuality, does homosexualiy have these asymmetries as well? In some situations, yes. But homosexuality and heterosexuality actually work symmetrical. We normally don't have a situation like "Homosexuals only partner with homosexuals, whereas heterosexuals partner with homosexuals and heterosexuals". The relation is like this: homosexuals couple with homsoexuals, heterosexuals couple with heterosexuals. This symmetry alone is a reason why homosexuals had it at the same time worse than other minorities (because they can't convert heterosexuals, the number of homosexuals didn't increase over the years and is today still around 2%), but at the same time had it better than other minorities (When the first prejudices against homosexuals disappeared and they became more open, people realized that most of the gays aren't a threat to their own lifestyle). There are some issues that had a more asymmetrical relationship, like gay marriage (Straight people might or might not support gay marriage, the majority of gay people always will), but they are often political in nature and not really about homosexuality itself (a society could be tolerant towards homosexuality, but not have gay marriage).
The situation for troonerism is different and their existence functions much more like religion. There are asymmetries EVERYWHERE:
Cis people might call themselves cis or not, but troons will always use the cis/trans dichotomy (I will use the terms non-delusional people (ND) and trans people from now on)
ND might use preferred pronouns, troons will always use preferred pronouns, even when a chick looks like a guy.
ND might get caught up in the troon cult and mutliate themselves (as many young lesbian girls do now), troons will always do it.
ND might deny biological reality, troons (here mostly AGP) need to deny biological reality for their survival.
ND might or might not push a troon ideology, troons most certainly will (You can't push a cis agenda, because there isn't one).
ND might call for more "diversity" in movies, TV, books, comics etc., troons will never ask for more ND people
ND might or might not support child transitioning, troons will mostly support it
ND might or might not support troons in female sport, troons mostly will
ND lesbians might fuck a troon, a (agp) troon will gladly accept.
etc.
Now troonerism won't be able to have the same power as Christianity or Islam, since it's very difficult to up their numbers. But troons prove how much power a small minority can get just by being very loud, intolerant and abusing asymmetric rules. Sometimes people realize that a small minority is actually altering the fabric of a society so drastically, that almost all their identity gets based on being against this new force in society This is why we see a backlash towards troons now that just didn't exist for gays (the gay/heterosexual dichotomy is too symmetric). Ultraliberal J.K. Rowling even gets fed up with it because of her sex-based feminism or young girls who feel threatened because of troon in sports. Even many lesbians get slowly but surely creeped out by troons. While lesbians just wanted to sleep with other women and never used a political agend to force striaght women to sleep with them (symmetrical), troons want the lesbian pussy (sorry, front hole) so bad, they threaten lesbians now by calling them terfs when they don't want to have sex with an ogre wearing make-up and high heels. It's similiar how Christians in the Middle East refused to eat Halal meat to distinguish them from the growing Muslim population. Not because their religion forbid them to eat it, but because they saw it as a way how Muslims alter Christian Middle Eastern society (as they eventually did).
Normally a minority population needs around 2~5% in a country to exert their influence and they have to be spread evenly. Troons actually don't fit into this category. I think it's the internet that amplified minority voices so strongly that even fringe groups like troons can now exert much more influence than should ever have been possible.
