I Remember One Guy Who Tried To Push This Idea Online. Here's What He Looked Like:

I remember one guy who tried to push this idea online. Here's what he looked like:

He was later outed as a predator by a transgender woman who was 10 years younger than him. She accused him of manipulating her into a relationship, forcing her to move in with him, coercing her to have sex with him.

I'm literally never going to respect his pronouns because it seems so obvious to me that he was doing this shit to get a "political pass". If you read his fucking manifestos, you'll get a sense of how he thinks: "Men are morally corrupt; women are the victims of this, which turns women into a latent revolutionary force. I'd rather 'identify with womanhood' than to be one of the men overthrown in the uprising."

Hahaha... haha... ha.

I still think about it 10 years later because this guy's influence was insane in some sections of tumblr, a decade ago... and he posted some really deep cuts into his own "transgender" psychology. How much did he come up with lies? Good question, so keep that in mind.

It's really interesting how open he was, before the callout post:

(I would guess he means for sexual reasons, maybe even predatory reasons.)

I find this really interesting, because he could have been a real trailblazer. He has the choice of who he dates and how he can act. Being a straight woman doesn't conscript one to slave away in a patriarchal relationship. You have to choose an individual person who could treat you right. You're only one person and you only need one person as a lover. You don't necessarily need the whole world to be perfect, to be happy or find love. Sure, shit can really fucking suck but we each can change it ourselves. We don't need to fucking cut off our dicks about it.

Keep in mind, he had a cisgender wife when he published this shit.

but you sound like you don't want to step up and be that "good man", as you say:

Words of a predator.

Got this on my mind again...

I get this, to an extent, from one man talking to another man, both able to assess eachother's individual personalities.

but also it is literally true that "Not all men are bad".

the guy in the screenshot seems like he is desperate for approval, but there is a difference between twisting facts to favor you, to get attention, to draw people towards you with the idea that you're a "safe person"..... and with just stating the truth plainly. I shouldn't be shunned from a feminist discussion for talking about the good men in my life. Aren't we trying to make more men good?

and yeah, I also think people do need positive reinforcement, especially if they're changing their minds, becoming less misogynist. They don't need to be made to feel like they're "never going to be able to do enough". because self-preservation instinct will eventually kick in, and they'll just leave your movement to find something that actually honors them as a person.

I also hate the type of guys I've met who will act all "feministly subservient" and say "oh you must know better as a woman, right? it must be so hard being a woman", because they obviously just wanted some pussy, and they were trying to ingratiate themselves. It's fucking pathetic, denigrating themselves and their gender because another woman told them to. "men really suck", you fucking insulted my father along with your own shrivelling pathetic ass.

I prefer men who have a healthy self-esteem, who are content with themselves, and willing to defend themselves and argue for their own right to ideas. I like debate. I don't like people who will just agree with me because they've been told that's "proper". I want to hear other people's perspectives, and square them together.... I want to be challenged in the intellectual arena. I want to know if I've made an error, or an assumption. I want to refine my understanding of the world I live in.

if you don't trust someone, then just don't talk to them about this stuff. That might be hard, online... but you have to be willing to draw lines. You don't need to punish people for healthy debate, in order to ward away trolls. Learn to identify trolls and then single them out.

Remember the "trans women's" blog purges that started in February?

I wonder how many of these people are having their blogs suspended for the hateful messages they've sent. In my experience, the troons are the most vitriolic during an argument. If it isn't going their way, they'll just throw it. They'll say: "Kill yourself, nazi scum!"

even just for saying really fucking soft shit like: "trans men have their own issues, as well. Trans women are not the center of the entire fucking political universe, lol"

That earned a few good hate messages.

So how many of those add up to an account termination?

They're not necessarily something public. I would guess that the staff can trace a logged-in anon if it's reported. I really feel like troons make their own fucking problems and then cry about them.

Just before the OG crybaby got suspended, he incited a cyberbullying campaign against a ftm blogger.

Shit like this:

So yeah, no, he totally wasn't banned due to his own behaviour. He's totally a safe person to have on the website. He didndu nuffin wrong!

How many other people have similar stories? Those people who sent me hateful messages had their blogs deleted. Does being "trans female" just predispose you to writing out hateful screeds against random internet users, and so should we exempt such people from normal rules of social conduct?

lmfao get real

I also find it really funny how one defensive blogger said: "He was nice to my ex-gf, so he couldn't have been mean to anyone else in private". What a fucking defense...

The rule of the troon: Misery loves company!

I also notice that of the people who tell other people to "kill themselves", many of them publically blog about their own suicidal urges.

I suppose that it's a topic on their mind all the time, so they're projecting it outwards so they don't feel so bad.

I honestly barely comprehend the idea of sending such a message. It's so stupid. "I want to kill you" is a much stronger threat. "Kill yourself" is like begging someone to do it. It comes from a subordinate position. It's really gay.

All social units and groups are only as good and healthy as the people in it. This applies to all kinds of familial, platonic and romantic interpersonal relationships. With the right people, they are wonderful, with the wrong people, they are dangerous. Both pro community and pro family advocates seem to overlook this point.

People who promote community as an antidote to toxic romantic and family dynamics are either deeply naive or actively trying to recruit lonely and desperate people to their definitely abusive communities. There are many examples of offline and online communities being cesspools for abusers.

I know many people are rightfully disillusioned by romantic and familial relationships but friendships and community are not inherently better. You need to still be on the look out for abusers and predators.

There is no getting away from physical, financial and emotional self reliance because you need to able and willing to stand on your own if the time comes. I said in another post, desperation is the mother of exploitation. If you are desperate to be a part of any kind of social unit, you are at high risk of being abused.

By the way, I believe in allyship that is working together with people to achieve common shared goals. This is more reliable than friendship to me because if there is one thing you can trust the majority of humans to do is self preservation. Allyship can turn to friendship but don't be disappointed when it doesn't because people are going to look out for themselves and when your goals no longer align, they will be on their merry way, they can even become your adversary when your goals no longer align.

I was raised atheistically by my parents.

Looking out on the people around me, listening to the teacher describe massacres commited against the Native American people by the European colonisers... Seeing the looks on the faces of all these christian kids, because they thought: "Oh well, it happens. They should have given up for christ."

It's apparent to me how religion can be used as a brainwashing tool to justify slaughter, military campaigns, destroying other people's lives if they don't live how the christians think they're supposed to live. I hear news of other religious people behaving similarly, but I grew up around a lot of christian families, so that's my experience I can draw from.

How braindead can you be?

You believe whatever your parents tell you?

I mean, yeah... you're a kid.

An excerpt of chapter 5 of 1984, George Orwell.

Sometimes, too, they talked of engaging in active rebellion against the Party, but with no notion of how to take the first step. Even if the fabulous Brotherhood was a reality, there still remained the difficulty of finding one's way into it. He told her of the strange intimacy that existed, or seemed to exist, between himself and O'Brien, and of the impulse he sometimes felt, simply to walk into O'Brien's presence, announce that he was the enemy of the Party, and demand his help. Curiously enough, this did not strike her as an impossibly rash thing to do. She was used to judging people by their faces, and it seemed natural to her that Winston should believe O'Brien to be trustworthy on the strength of a single flash of the eyes. Moreover she took it for granted that everyone, or nearly everyone, secretly hated the Party and would break the rules if he thought it safe to do so. But she refused to believe that widespread, organized opposition existed or could exist. The tales about Goldstein and his underground army, she said, were simply a lot of rubbish which the Party had invented for its own purposes and which you had to pretend to believe in. Times beyond number, at Party rallies and spontaneous demonstrations, she had shouted at the top of her voice for the execution of people whose names she had never heard and in whose supposed crimes she had not the faintest belief. When public trials were happening she had taken her place in the detachments from the Youth League who surrounded the courts from morning to night, chanting at intervals 'Death to the traitors!' During the Two Minutes Hate she always excelled all others in shouting insults at Goldstein. Yet she had only the dimmest idea of who Goldstein was and what doctrines he was supposed to represent. She had grown up since the Revolution and was too young to remember the ideological battles of the fifties and sixties. Such a thing as an independent political movement was outside her imagination: and in any case the Party was invincible. It would always exist, and it would always be the same. You could only rebel against it by secret disobedience or, at most, by isolated acts of violence such as killing somebody or blowing something up.

In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connexion to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him. She also stirred a sort of envy in him by telling him that during the Two Minutes Hate her great difficulty was to avoid bursting out laughing. But she only questioned the teachings of the Party when they in some way touched upon her own life. Often she was ready to accept the official mythology, simply because the difference between truth and falsehood did not seem important to her. She believed, for instance, having learnt it at school, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. (In his own schooldays, Winston remembered, in the late fifties, it was only the helicopter that the Party claimed to have invented; a dozen years later, when Julia was at school, it was already claiming the aeroplane; one generation more, and it would be claiming the steam engine.) And when he told her that aeroplanes had been in existence before he was born and long before the Revolution, the fact struck her as totally uninteresting. After all, what did it matter who had invented aeroplanes? It was rather more of a shock to him when he discovered from some chance remark that she did not remember that Oceania, four years ago, had been at war with Eastasia and at peace with Eurasia. It was true that she regarded the whole war as a sham: but apparently she had not even noticed that the name of the enemy had changed. 'I thought we'd always been at war with Eurasia,' she said vaguely. It frightened him a little. The invention of aeroplanes dated from long before her birth, but the switchover in the war had happened only four years ago, well after she was grown up. He argued with her about it for perhaps a quarter of an hour. In the end he succeeded in forcing her memory back until she did dimly recall that at one time Eastasia and not Eurasia had been the enemy. But the issue still struck her as unimportant. 'Who cares?' she said impatiently. 'It's always one bloody war after another, and one knows the news is all lies anyway.'

Sometimes he talked to her of the Records Department and the impudent forgeries that he committed there. Such things did not appear to horrify her. She did not feel the abyss opening beneath her feet at the thought of lies becoming truths. He told her the story of Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford and the momentous slip of paper which he had once held between his fingers. It did not make much impression on her. At first, indeed, she failed to grasp the point of the story. 'Were they friends of yours?' she said. 'No, I never knew them. They were Inner Party members. Besides, they were far older men than I was. They belonged to the old days, before the Revolution. I barely knew them by sight.' 'Then what was there to worry about? People are being killed off all the time, aren't they?' He tried to make her understand. 'This was an exceptional case. It wasn't just a question of somebody being killed. Do you realize that the past, starting from yesterday, has been actually abolished? If it survives anywhere, it's in a few solid objects with no words attached to them, like that lump of glass there. Already we know almost literally nothing about the Revolution and the years before the Revolution. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. I know, of course, that the past is falsified, but it would never be possible for me to prove it, even when I did the falsification myself. After the thing is done, no evidence ever remains. The only evidence is inside my own mind, and I don't know with any certainty that any other human being shares my memories. Just in that one instance, in my whole life, I did possess actual concrete evidence after the event--years after it.' 'And what good was that?' 'It was no good, because I threw it away a few minutes later. But if the same thing happened today, I should keep it.' 'Well, I wouldn't!' said Julia. 'I'm quite ready to take risks, but only for something worth while, not for bits of old newspaper. What could you have done with it even if you had kept it?' 'Not much, perhaps. But it was evidence. It might have planted a few doubts here and there, supposing that I'd dared to show it to anybody. I don't imagine that we can alter anything in our own lifetime. But one can imagine little knots of resistance springing up here and there--small groups of people banding themselves together, and gradually growing, and even leaving a few records behind, so that the next generations can carry on where we leave off.' 'I'm not interested in the next generation, dear. I'm interested in US.' 'You're only a rebel from the waist downwards,' he told her. She thought this brilliantly witty and flung her arms round him in delight.

In the ramifications of party doctrine she had not the faintest interest. Whenever he began to talk of the principles of Ingsoc, doublethink, the mutability of the past, and the denial of objective reality, and to use Newspeak words, she became bored and confused and said that she never paid any attention to that kind of thing. One knew that it was all rubbish, so why let oneself be worried by it? She knew when to cheer and when to boo, and that was all one needed. If he persisted in talking of such subjects, she had a disconcerting habit of falling asleep. She was one of those people who can go to sleep at any hour and in any position. Talking to her, he realized how easy it was to present an appearance of orthodoxy while having no grasp whatever of what orthodoxy meant. In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.

....on the internet, no one knows you're really cis.

Plus, anyone can throw together a crossdresser fit and say they're "pre-HRT", or repost the selfies of another person.

Throwback :)

What if the “down with CIS” folks are actually trans/homophobic and act the way they do to people different from them in order to make everyone hate the lgbt community/ movement.

I’m now convinced they’re homo/transphobes. I mean after all, they try to drive those they disagree with to suicide so nothing’s really below them