#Rhetoric of unity

[adomainname]

A Legacy of Strength: Churchill’s Historic June 4th, 1940 Speech

In the annals of history, there are speeches that resonate far beyond their immediate context, echoing through the corridors of time with unwavering clarity. One such speech is Winston Churchill's address to the British House of Commons on 4th June 1940. Delivered during the dark days of World War II, it is a masterclass in rhetoric and resolve, encapsulated by the stirring words, "We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be."

This speech was not just a call to arms; it was a galvanizing force that unified a nation under siege. Let's explore some key features of this historic oration that continue to captivate and inspire.

1: A Rallying Cry

Purposeful Tone: Churchill's speech was crafted to bolster British morale during a time of great uncertainty. His deliberate choice of words and assertive tone aimed to reassure the public and military forces alike, affirming that surrender was not an option.

Emotional Resonance: The speech tapped into the collective spirit of the British people, acknowledging their fears while simultaneously igniting a fierce determination to stand strong against the looming threat of Nazi Germany.

2: Masterful Use of Repetition

Repetition for Emphasis: The repeated use of "We shall" throughout the speech is a rhetorical device that underscores the resolve and solidarity of the British people. This technique not only emphasizes commitment but also creates a rhythmic, almost musical quality that reinforces the speech's memorability.

Building Momentum: As the speech progresses, the repetition builds momentum, sweeping the audience along on a wave of national pride and unyielding strength.

3: A Vision of Collective Unity

Inclusive Language: By using inclusive language such as "our Island" and "we," Churchill fostered a sense of unity and shared responsibility. This was crucial in rallying a diverse population to a common cause.

Beyond Borders: Churchill's words extended beyond the geographical confines of Britain, symbolizing the broader fight for freedom and democracy. This vision resonated with Allied nations, cementing partnerships that were vital for the war effort.

4: Timeless Inspiration

A Legacy of Resilience: Decades later, Churchill's speech remains a symbol of resilience and courage. It serves as a reminder that in times of adversity, the human spirit is capable of remarkable perseverance.

Modern Relevance: In today's world, where challenges abound, the speech continues to inspire leaders and individuals alike to stand their ground and face difficulties head-on.

In conclusion, Winston Churchill's speech of 4th June 1940 is more than a historical artifact; it is a testament to the power of words to unite, inspire, and fortify the human spirit against overwhelming odds. Though not essential to daily life, revisiting this classic oration offers a profound reminder of the enduring strength found in collective resolve and an unwavering commitment to a just cause.

Go to Churchill's Speech on 4th June 1940

[cardentist]

another thing that I think would fix 50% of queer infighting overnight: if people understood what "invisibility" actually Means.

people see "this oppressed group has a problem with invisibility" and assume it just means "nobody knows what this oppressed group is," and Then assume "so nobody targets this oppressed group for Being an oppressed group."

when what "invisibility" Actually means is that when this oppressed group faces violence, that violence is swept under the rug (either by being misreported, or not reported at all).

the point of fighting back against invisibility is about allowing people to speak up about the oppression they Already Face and actually be Heard. which can then be used to help people get the support that they need.

so when someone says "this group doesn't experience violence Because all they face is invisibility" they are Actively participating in that invisibility, which then perpetuates that violence by allowing it to continue unseen.

which, of course, gets even Worse when people use this misunderstanding as an excuse to be actively violent towards other community members. to Actively try to suppress other people's voices because of this perception that they must Have It Better because the violence they face is, well, Invisible.

[nervoustragedyluminary]

If Someone appears to be venting in the transandrophobia tags about facing lateral aggression due to being a trans guy then they hit you with

"why do amabs always behave like this? they always think they're better than us/it's always amabs doing this"

Then that's very likely a terf or someone who is drinking their koolaid and it is probably best to tell them to knock it off and /or block them.

Lateral aggression from trans women and trans fems isn't "amabs using their male privelige to dominate and oppress the deluded weak trans identified feeemales"

it's oppressed people lashing out at the closest safest targets who happen to be fellow trans people often as a response to similar lateral aggression from trans men but generalising all trans men and "afabs" to be exactly like the shitty dude/s who were being transmisogynistic to them.

it's people doing respectability politics

It's classic humans being humans in a crab bucket

its not some magical biological drive or trans women being a hive mind of secret mras

trans women aren't misogynist sleeper agents waiting to hurt trans men and other "afab" assumed trans people, and terfs who keep trying to push this bullshit should know that we see through you and condemn your misogyny and transphobia and stand with our trans sisters and siblings

Beware of anyone equating any crappy behaviour by anyone to their AGAB because that's bioessentialism and it's a cornerstone of terf and misogynistic rhetoric

Just because a trans woman is being a cruel fuckwit that doesn't make her a man,

no trans women aren't "biologically prone towards selfishness more so than other trans people "

Anyone saying that shit is spreading terf rhetoric and trying to prey on people who are hurting to try to isolate them and make them feel like they can't trust other trans people least of all trans women.

It's a grooming tactic ;"you can't trust anyone except fellow afabs" is grooming (similar for the"you can't trust afab trans people crowd) it's an isolation tactic that cuts you off from outside sources of information and experiences that conflict with the simplistic "us vs them" narratives that these high control groups like terfs want to indoctrinate people into

Terfs want us trans guys and assumed "afab" trans people to turn on trans women and fems and assumed "amab" trans people and buy into their fairytale of "male socialisation /behaviour versus afab solidarity uwu sex separatism and violence is feminist" & fuck that to hell

remember to keep an eye out for transmisogyny and point it out for what it is.

Solidarity forever

(The vast majority of people I do see calling it out I just saw a heinous post and needed to vent)

[ookaookaooka]

ive been worrying a lot lately (mostly pointlessly) about how can i believe anything anyone says is accurate if there's no such thing as an objective view of the world (like... in theory the world exists objectively, but every time we see and describe it we're only describing our interpretation of it no matter how objective we try to be, and sometimes our perspective can be really flawed without us realizing, like when i was 5 and everyone said my bike was tiny but i literally couldn't see the difference in size between my bike and theirs until i was older and had a bigger bike)

and the thing that gave me the most comfort weirdly was that beauty is something that is always 100% subjective. so if i think something is beautiful, it really is 100% for sure beautiful because i think it is. and for someone else that thing could be ugly or meaningless but that's okay because beauty is subjective.

[creature-wizard]

The function of the term "unity consciousness" is to sugarcoat having a colonizer mindset.

[blueheartbookclub]

Delving into Poetic Wisdom: A Review of "On the Art of Poetry" by Aristotle

Aristotle's "On the Art of Poetry," translated by Ingram Bywater, stands as a seminal work in literary criticism, offering profound insights into the nature and function of poetry that continue to resonate with readers and scholars alike. Written in the 4th century BCE, this treatise serves as a comprehensive examination of the principles and techniques that underlie the creation of poetry, providing valuable guidance for poets and readers alike.

At its core, "On the Art of Poetry" is a testament to Aristotle's keen intellect and analytical prowess. In this work, Aristotle explores the various elements that contribute to the effectiveness of poetry, including plot, character, diction, and spectacle. Through his systematic analysis, Aristotle seeks to uncover the universal principles that govern the art of poetry, shedding light on its essential nature and its role in human society.

One of the most compelling aspects of "On the Art of Poetry" is Aristotle's emphasis on the importance of mimesis, or imitation, in poetry. According to Aristotle, poetry is a form of imitation that seeks to represent the actions, emotions, and experiences of human life. Through the skillful use of language and imagery, poets are able to create a vivid and lifelike portrayal of the world, inviting readers to engage with their work on a profound emotional and intellectual level.

Moreover, "On the Art of Poetry" offers valuable insights into the principles of dramatic structure and the role of catharsis in tragedy. Aristotle argues that tragedy is a form of poetry that evokes feelings of pity and fear in the audience, leading to a purgation or cleansing of these emotions. Through the depiction of the fall of a tragic hero, tragedy allows audiences to confront their own mortality and the fragility of human existence, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the human condition.

In addition to its exploration of tragedy, "On the Art of Poetry" also examines the principles of comedy and epic poetry, providing valuable guidance for poets working in these genres. Aristotle discusses the importance of unity of plot, character, and theme in epic poetry, as well as the role of humor and satire in comedy. Through his analysis, Aristotle highlights the diversity of poetic forms and the unique challenges and opportunities that each genre presents to the poet.

In conclusion, "On the Art of Poetry" by Aristotle is a timeless classic that continues to inspire and enlighten readers with its profound insights into the nature of poetry. Aristotle's systematic approach to literary criticism, coupled with his keen observations and analytical rigor, make this work an indispensable resource for anyone interested in the art of poetry. With its timeless wisdom and enduring relevance, "On the Art of Poetry" remains a cornerstone of literary theory and a testament to the enduring power of poetic expression.

Aristotle's "On the Art of Poetry," is available in Amazon in paperback 12.99$ and hardcover 18.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 116

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[satireinfo]

Biden: Out, Damn Spot, Out!

Biden’s “Out, Damn Spot, Out!” Freudian Slip or Admission of Guilt? Washington D.C. — In an unprecedented and theatrical twist, President Joe Biden began his Sunday night speech with a line straight out of Shakespeare: “Out, damn spot, out!” This unexpected literary reference left the nation puzzled and amused. Was Biden channeling his inner Lady Macbeth to address his own feelings of guilt and…

[blueheartbooks]

Delving into Poetic Wisdom: A Review of "On the Art of Poetry" by Aristotle

Aristotle's "On the Art of Poetry," translated by Ingram Bywater, stands as a seminal work in literary criticism, offering profound insights into the nature and function of poetry that continue to resonate with readers and scholars alike. Written in the 4th century BCE, this treatise serves as a comprehensive examination of the principles and techniques that underlie the creation of poetry, providing valuable guidance for poets and readers alike.

At its core, "On the Art of Poetry" is a testament to Aristotle's keen intellect and analytical prowess. In this work, Aristotle explores the various elements that contribute to the effectiveness of poetry, including plot, character, diction, and spectacle. Through his systematic analysis, Aristotle seeks to uncover the universal principles that govern the art of poetry, shedding light on its essential nature and its role in human society.

One of the most compelling aspects of "On the Art of Poetry" is Aristotle's emphasis on the importance of mimesis, or imitation, in poetry. According to Aristotle, poetry is a form of imitation that seeks to represent the actions, emotions, and experiences of human life. Through the skillful use of language and imagery, poets are able to create a vivid and lifelike portrayal of the world, inviting readers to engage with their work on a profound emotional and intellectual level.

Moreover, "On the Art of Poetry" offers valuable insights into the principles of dramatic structure and the role of catharsis in tragedy. Aristotle argues that tragedy is a form of poetry that evokes feelings of pity and fear in the audience, leading to a purgation or cleansing of these emotions. Through the depiction of the fall of a tragic hero, tragedy allows audiences to confront their own mortality and the fragility of human existence, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the human condition.

In addition to its exploration of tragedy, "On the Art of Poetry" also examines the principles of comedy and epic poetry, providing valuable guidance for poets working in these genres. Aristotle discusses the importance of unity of plot, character, and theme in epic poetry, as well as the role of humor and satire in comedy. Through his analysis, Aristotle highlights the diversity of poetic forms and the unique challenges and opportunities that each genre presents to the poet.

In conclusion, "On the Art of Poetry" by Aristotle is a timeless classic that continues to inspire and enlighten readers with its profound insights into the nature of poetry. Aristotle's systematic approach to literary criticism, coupled with his keen observations and analytical rigor, make this work an indispensable resource for anyone interested in the art of poetry. With its timeless wisdom and enduring relevance, "On the Art of Poetry" remains a cornerstone of literary theory and a testament to the enduring power of poetic expression.

Aristotle's "On the Art of Poetry," is available in Amazon in paperback 12.99$ and hardcover 18.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 116

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

[lilyveselka]

How To Shut Up A Woman In Three Steps: The Transmisogynist's Guide

I - Her Tone

This is, by far, the easiest tool to wield effectively against a trans woman. If she is short in her responses, then you can accuse her of harassment and unwarranted anger; if she outright blocks you then you can simply claim that she only cares about her small-minded internet echo chamber; and if she engages with you at any length then you can quite easily nitpick her language and tone until she is thoroughly discredited.

Even better, she will most certainly become annoyed with you - in this scenario, all you have to do is argue that she is aggressive, hysterical, and quite likely a danger to society, and you will be believed by a great many people. This is, of course, because the trans woman's natural position is as a fundamental danger to society. Therefore, it takes very little convincing for an onlooker to come to that selfsame conclusion with some prompting. They may not even be aware that they are falling victim to their own inherent transmisogynistic bias, which is why this approach is quite beautiful in its simplicity! For those who don't immediately believe you, you can easily dismiss them as brainwashed idiots, syncophants, or both.

To drive your point home, call her a terf, a radfem, or a baeddel. If she has ever, in anger, spoken poorly of cis queers, or even better of transmascs, then this will become trivial to argue. Tell her that she is the problem, that she is contributing to community infighting, and that she should really be trying harder to work on this whole "trans unity" thing. Blame all oppression on her. For bonus points, when you tell her that she is dividing the community, you can also throw in the idea that should be making out with you instead of arguing. (This is, of course, because women primarily belong as sex objects to men, and if she would stop having so many opinions then perhaps she would understand this better.)

II - Her Privilege

This is an expanded version of the former tactic, because it requires a certain level of delicacy in the wording you use. However, people react quite strongly to the language of privilege, irrespective of whether that language reflects a material reality, and therefore this is a fantastic way to make a woman stop whining.

I would advise you to check if the woman is white; if she is, then you can easily accuse her of weaponizing her whiteness. (N.B. If she has not stated her race publicly, or if you can't be bothered to check, then this accusation will still work - if she is actually a woman of color, you may very easily claim that you were making a statement about white trans women in general. Further, it is not necessary for you yourself to be a person of color; as long as you position her as uniquely privileged in her whiteness, your own whiteness will remain irrelevant.)

In a similar bent, it is always quite possible for you to dismiss her theory as being "white." Always posit that she is championing a sort of wealthy white woman's privilege, always claim that transfeminism is at its core non-intersectional, and always claim that transfeminist theory in its entirety was created by the white woman - in this way, you may mark her as a privileged white bitch regardless of her race, national origin, or identity. (Under no circumstances should you mention or acknowledge the existence of trans women of color, as this immediately disarms your rhetorical weapon. In fact, if she brings up trans women of color, it is most necessary for you to claim that she is co-opting their experiences.) If you can imply that she is a racist while doing so, then you will be even more successful.

If this fails, then there are other similar cudgels you can implement to great effect: perhaps claims of intersexism, exorsexism, or sex-based discrimination. Call her a "perisex trans woman," a "binary trans woman," an "amab trans person." Say that she is speaking over the real victims; if you must combine multiple (or all!) of these terms at once in order to make her seem like a uniquely privileged party, then do so without hesitation. If she has ever had a bad opinion, or an opinion that you might frame without context as being a bad opinion, then simply publicize that. However, in the absence of such, see rulebook as follows: if she talks only of trans women in general, then you must bring up transmasculine nonbinary people; if she talks of transfeminine nonbinary people, then you must bring up intersex people; if she talks of trans people as a whole then you ought to circle right back around to claiming that she could never understand what trans men have gone through. Never concede that, say, an intersex trans woman exists, because that will inevitably lose you rhetorical ground.

Insinuate that she is herself the oppressor, that she is regressive and small-minded. In fact, if you really wish to run circles around her, then you can easily accuse her of upholding her own oppression by arguing that she is upholding a gender binary, enforcing sex-based division in the community with her language. If she describes herself as a victim of transmisogyny, then tell her that all people can be victims of transmisogyny; if she tells you that this is inaccurate, then simply argue that she is speaking over the real victim (you).

In fact, if you misgender yourself and claim to be oppressed due to your assigned birth sex, then she will have no recourse to fight back - because we all know that she is really a male, and therefore is silencing you poor natal women, who are the true arbiters of female oppression, and the real experts on misogyny. If you intend to utilize this specific tack, then I would personally suggest you use "they/them" to refer to her, because delegitimizing her womanhood is a key component to this argument.

III - Unpersoning

If both of the above techniques have failed (unlikely!) then you may now proceed to that age-old transmisogynistic technique: weaponizing her fetishes. This can be a bit more difficult to bring up naturally, but it is a last resort that can produce some fantastic results. Ask yourself the following: Has she posted about CNC? Has she talked about siscon roleplay? Has she ever engaged in a little/caretaker dynamic? Has she ever made a forcefem joke? In order, your claim against her should be as follows: she loves rape, she loves incestuous abuse, she loves to fuck children, and she personally wants to nonconsensually detransition every transmasc because of her violent perversion. It should be quite simple to get people to turn on her. If she has ever interacted with a user who has posted any of these things, simply consider her tainted by association and dismiss her in the same manner.

This is, as previously discussed, due to her natural position as a degenerate danger to society; simply reinforce that concept wherever possible, until she is driven away from her online circle entirely. Do not outright use the word "autogynephilia," but you can certainly suggest the actual tenets of the idea to wonderful effect.

This can be implemented via statements such as, "oh, so now the incest lover is going to tell me about the oppression i experience;" however, if you would care to be more subtle, then you can set up a slow-burn whisper network to turn her friends and acquaintances against her, or dedicate years to harassing her in her comments section whenever possible.

If she has pushed you far enough that this technique has become necessary, then it is clear that she must be a hostile force in the community who ought to be removed by any means. Therefore, it falls to you to try to get her to cut herself off from everyone who might support her - this will efficiently shut her up. If you can get her to kill herself, then it will silence her permanently (and cause you to win the argument, by extension)!

Just remember: what you are doing is noble and correct, because any woman who claims that a man has power over her is one who is better off dead.

[unkstaarwysbr]

Trump's Presidency: An Altered Landscape of Expectations

In the realm of American politics, Donald Trump’s tenure as President ushered in a whirlwind of change, reshaping the expectations that surround the highest office in the land. The Straight Dope Show 279 delved into the profound impact of Trump’s approach to the presidency and the lasting impressions it left on future incumbents. Hosts dissected various aspects of Trump’s leadership, shedding…

[transhuman-priestess]

Every few years there’s a shift in the discourse where someone decides that there’s a group of queers who aren’t “really” queer and for reasons unknown decided that they will focus all of their discourse on trying to discredit that one group.

It used to be “straight passing” bisexuals. Then it was “Theyfabs” and “transtrenders”. Then it was “hetero aces.” Now it’s “transmisogyny-exempt” people. And the thing you find every time is that the people writing angry multi-paragraph screeds about how these “invaders” are “stealing resources” or “silencing people” but they can never actually point to more than one or two examples, at best, of this happening.

But if you repeat something enough with a strong enough conviction in your voice, people will pretty much always be willing to think you’re right, even when you aren’t.

This is the basis of fascism. Exclusionary rhetoric is fascist. No one is immune to this thought process. You have to actively work on avoiding it.

“Did you just call me a fascist because I’m concerned with TME people silencing trans women” i mean, yeah. I did. Fix yourself, and I’ll be willing to talk to you again. I won’t apologize for what I said, mind you. But you can always fix yourself.

I used to think like that. I used to talk about how you “need dysphoria to be trans” and how bi people can “pass as straight” and how trans men “take up our space.” And I was wrong about all that.

There’s enough space in the queer community for everyone. We are always stronger when we understand this. Please, look towards unity rather than division. Fix yourselves.

Being wrong doesn’t make you a bad person. Changing your views is not evidence of weakness. Your friends will still live you if you change. Please.

[nervoustragedyluminary]

Absolutely this too thanks for adding, they also erase enbyphobia /ceterosexism/exorsexism and Gnc phobia and butchphobia

Editing to add:

"transwomen" /"transmen" without the space because terfs don't acknowledge trans women as women or trans men as men it's a dogwhistle to "you're not really a woman /man" & an example of that "I'm not touching you I'm not touching you!" bigotry - the point is to put enough plausible deniablility for other cis people; "whoopsie I forgot the space Omg trans people are SO sensitive look at how they're making a big deal of not putting a space there I'm not even calling them subhuman[yet]?! " but imagine you see someone only ever typing "Lesbianwoman/en" instead of "lesbian woman/en" & going on to say stuff like "lesbianwomen are lesbianwomen & straight women are women"? it's that same idea that trans women can only be "transwomen" & not "trans women" or "women who happen to be trans /women with trans experience /history " it's a dogwhistle to the speaker about not viewing trans women as women and seeing cis women as "real" women. Ditto for "transmen" instead of "trans men"

TIM /TIF /TRA "trans identified male/female" or "trans rights activist" [Derogatory] mostly well known acronyms at this point that basically ammount to "you're a male/female but you iDeNtIfY as trans" - calling trans women "males" and trans men "females". "TRA" is an attempt to equate trans people with cis MRAs & comes from the false belief that trans rights are driven by cis MRAs in order to end feminism (they equate trans women with cis MRAs and trans men with cis women "honeybadgers" /supporters of MRA BS & claim that trans women are just pretending to be women in order to "steal/hijack" the feminist movement it's basically like the great replacement conspiracy but substituting cis women for white people who are apparently "in danger of being replaced" ) and some even claim that the existence of trans people is part of "the great replacement" & will veer into antisemitic conspiracies about Jewish people creating/controlling media/pornography in order to "trans" people to "destroy western civilisation /the family" this is usually where the terf to tradfem/alt-right pipeline comes in

DSDs or "disorders of sexual development" when talking about intersex people they will often refuse to use the widely accepted non-dehumanising term "intersex" & instead call them "DSDs/DSD males/females" because in terf ideology intersex people are seen as inherently "disordered" & any "correction" [Genital mutilation medical abuse and CSA] is thus justified as "normalising them for their own good" all intersex people are pushed into a category of either "male /female" & Intersex people who refuse and refute this categorisation are rejected mocked and harassed as being "part of the problem"

"genetic/biological male/female" - same idea as calling trans women "males" or "TIMs" & trans men "females" or "TIFs" with added dehumanisation of implying that trans people aren't "biological" cis women are referred to as "Biological/genetic females" & cis men are referred to as "Biological/genetic males" basically they mean "real women/men" but they think that using the words "biological" /"genetic" makes them sound more scientific in their bigotry and dehumanisation... See also 'bio vaginas/breasts'

"handmaidens" - any cis woman or trans man or assumed 'afab' person who speaks out against transmisogyny or for trans rights in general- equating allies of trans women to the MRA "honeybadgers" group with added sexualisation and completely misunderstanding the handmaid's tale because terfs love victim blaming survivors even fictional ones. In the minds of terfs the trans liberation movement is lead /controlled by trans women and zero trans men or trans neutrals - they erase trans liberation figures who are trans men transneutral and nonbinary and will assign them as either trans women or trans men & use their sexist stereotypes of "males/females" accordingly ;so a trans woman or people they categorise such who speaks out about trans liberation is presented by terfs as "entitled delusional angry violent male who is dominating & needs to be brought back in line" & trans men or people terfs categorise as such are presented as "hysterical delusional female who is betraying us& doesn't understand what she's doing and needs to be brought back in line" - this isn't the be all and end all of how they talk about trans women and trans men and other trans people they force into those categories just a simplified overview & as with everything there is nuance and contradiction basically the "point" is that trans people can't "win" it's like the Madonna /wh*re dichotomy"(I've seen it called the "baby/predator" dichotomy in Anti-Transmasculinity & transandrophobia discussions) depending on if they think they can "convert" you or not, they'll be more overtly hostile if they judge you as someone not vulnerable to their grooming & more likely to try infantalising & "lovebombing" you if they think they can "convert" you.

"compelled speech" /"asking me not to misgender trans people is compelled speech"

Afabmisogyny - terf attempt to twist discussions of transandrophobia and misogyny to being about "'afabs' are all oppressed by 'amabs' and all have a shared universal experience that amabs could never understand" they'll use this to group trans men and people they presume to be afab with cis women as a unified group being oppressed by 'amabs' grouping trans women and cis men together ad an oppressor class- enbies and intersex people are forced into one of these binaries/erased/ignored as usual in radfem rhetoric

Some TERF DOGWHISTLES TO BE AWARE OF:

"sex class /sex based class" analysis that ignores and erases intersexism and transmisogyny in favour of equating trans women with cis men (misgendering)

"male supremacy" - and assuming (the small minority of) trans women who are awful to other trans people are that way because they are some kind of crypto MRAs and not just radfems and or assholes in their own right. Any harmful behaviour done by a trans woman is immediately assigned to "male supremacy"

"AMAB supremacy" just the same as calling trans women "male supremacists" & equating them to cis men and cis men MRAs - terfs seem to think that this is a way to get their "trans women are MRAs" shite past our BS detectors

"male socialisation" - especially when talking about (mischarecterising for grooming purposes ) intracommunity trans issues eg "trans women dOmInAtE and oppress trans men and trans spaces due to their male socialisation /experiences being raised as boys & trans men are demure in spaces and unwilling to speak up against the mean domineering trans women because of female socialisation "

"AFAB solidarity" - "trans men are my sisters (in the fight against the eevil trans women) " rebranded

[wilwheaton]

There is one issue now, and only one: keeping alive the vestiges of American democracy, with its commitment to meaningful checks and balances and to individual rights as well as majoritarian rule. American democracy has never been perfect, but it’s all we’ve got. When we have it, we can disagree peacefully and hope to remedy policy mistakes through discussion, legal action, and the ballot box. If we lose it, we’re done. So, whether you’re a fan of Bernie Sanders and the Squad or an admirer of Liz Cheney, we all need to stand together against Trump. To have any hope of achieving the kind of disciplined unity that will be essential to countering Trump, we also need a rhetoric and politics of inclusion. The left needs to ease up on cancel culture, rigid purity tests, and petty identity politics. We can’t give up on one another, and we can’t waste time wallowing in self-pity, or make plans to emigrate to Canada. This is our country. Around the world, millions of brave people have pushed back against far more abusive and frightening leaders than Donald Trump. If they can stand up against truly horrific regimes in their own countries, Americans can handle Trump.

I Helped Run “War Games” on Trump’s Plans. They Were Not Reassuring.

[gay-otlc]

This is a take I've seen fairly often- that trans men & mascs only think they experience transandrophobia because they refuse to accept that what they're experiencing is misogyny.

It's also a completely ridiculous take. The fact that trans men/mascs are targeted by misogyny is a fundamental part of transandrophobia theory. Trans men/mascs, and others who regularly discuss transandrophobia, emphasize over and over again the ways in which trans men/mascs experience misogyny. For example, the idea that they are women and therefore are too stupid and brainwashed to be trusted about their genders, or the sense of entitlement to trans men/mascs' bodies (how dare you ruin your perfect breasts, how dare you transition in a way that makes you unable to carry children, how dare you not be the beautiful woman i want you to be).

In fact, the people who deny that trans men/mascs experience misogyny tend to be the same people who argue against the concept of transandrophobia. They insist that trans men receive male privilege, and in fact actually benefit from misogyny rather than suffer from it.

When trans men/mascs point the ways that they are affected by misogyny, they are accused of spreading TERF rhetoric (as though acknowledging the ways in which people who were assigned female at birth are oppressed automatically means you believe in "sex consciousness" and "afab unity" against anyone assigned male at birth"), or accused of implying that trans women aren't affected by misogyny (they absolutely are, the belief that trans men and women can't both be affected by misogyny stems from oppositional sexism)

All this to say: The people who talk about transandrophobia are well aware that trans men/mascs suffer from misogyny, and aren't denying this out of dysphoria or internalized misogyny- they aren't denying this at all. The people who deny that trans men/mascs suffer from misogyny are the people who believe transandrophobia doesn't exist.

And, transandrophobia isn't "just misogyny." Misogyny is a crucial component of transandrophobia- again, no one who talkes about transandrophobia is denying this- but not the only component.

Trans men/mascs being denied access to gynecological healthcare (that cis women are able to access) because they appear to be men, or have their gender legally changed to male isn't "just misogyny."

Trans men/mascs to losing their friends, support, and abuse and mental health resources when they come out and transition, or reach a point of being "too masculine," isn't "just misogyny".

The belief that going on testosterone will make trans men/mascs dangerous and violent, and the negative rhetoric about bottom surgery, isn't "just misogyny."

Being called a gender traitor and accused siding with the enemy and only transitioning to gain male privilege isn't "just misogyny."

Trans men/mascs being impregnated specifically as a method of forcing them to detransition isn't "just misogyny."

Choosing to use a women's bathroom (either due to safety concerns or transphobic laws) and being kicked out or assaulted for looking male isn't "just misogyny."

Trans men/mascs getting violently attacked because "if you want to be a man so bad, I'll beat you up like one" isn't "just misogyny."

People who talk about transandrophobia very much recognize that trans men/mascs experience misogyny (and are trying to get people who deny transandrophobia to recognize this as well), and there are aspects of transandrophobia that go beyond "just misogyny." Neither of these things contradict each other. In conclusion, "'transandrophobia' is just misogyny but transmascs don't want to admit it" is completely false all around, so I wish it wasn't such a commonly held belief.

[apas-95]

any time someone starts complaining about infighting I eviscerate them with high-speed steel fragments. if there is a conflict it is due to a genuine contradiction between parties! conflicts do not appear out of nowhere! address the root causes of the conflict if you wish it to be done away with, not just admonish people for taking part in it.

why is this not done? if an error is maintained, it is not, in fact, an error - the purposeful obfuscation and misunderstanding of infighting is generally carried out because there is an imbalanced relationship that one party benefits from at the expense of the other, and the benefited party finds it useful to paint the exploited's attempts at illuminating and combating this relationship as somehow itself being the cause of conflict. to do so, they remove the source of conflict from the material, practical issue of the contradiction between interests, and onto the idealist notion that the exploited are simply generating Bad Ideas that lead them to oh-so-wrongfully attack their poor allies. in one swift move, the exploitation is swept under the rug, and discussion and opposition to the exploitation is presented as the enemy.

ignore the rhetoric, ignore the progressive-seeming veneer of 'we should fight together' - what, exactly, is the character of a supposed unity between exploited and exploiter that fails to address or even acknowledge their exploitation? it amounts to subordination, to reactionary repression of the most straightforward degree. historically, 'common strength against the enemy through unity with the oppressor' is the policy immediately preceeding extermination.

[rainbowgod666]

Hey

actually, you know what? fuck it.

i'm hoping to collect and archive as many Old As Dirt computer games as i possibly can. specifically, i'm looking at ones from the 70s and 80s that ran on VAX computers. if you are or know someone who might have one on a drive (hard or otherwise) somewhere, PLEASE get in contact with me.

even if you don't, please reblog this so more people can see!