81

23 comments

[+] [Deleted] 32 points

Because anyone who is genuinely fed up enough to really push back gets unpersoned and deplatformed, immediately branded a bigot whose voice doesn't count and broadly shunned. The quiet dissenters are frightened into remaining quiet and isolated from each other, and the vocal dissenters are effectively muted. "Did someone say something? What problem?"

Because a society that communicates primarily through digital media can be an authoritarian playground.

Because World Economic Forum.

The cabal of global corporations that is the WEF is not forcing gender identity ideology on us because they think we like it and it will win them cookies. They are forcing it on us as a key strategy to progress their vision for the future of human society, a future in which the human body itself, including human reproduction, is corporate owned and operated. If this doesn't make sense to you yet, see Jennifer Bilek on "Big Pharma, Big Tech, and Synthetic Sex Identities" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGKxSyEqCgU

Yup, this is the correct answer. There is an insane amount of money in controlling and selling us back our sexed bodies and their natural functions.

Because the public is not fed up. The patriarchal society is indifferent in its attitude to the homophobia and misogyny of gender identity ideology

That's how I feel in the US. Never mind fed up. A lot of people still have no clue.

And most of them would rather "trans" the gay or non-conformity away

[–] hmimperialtortie AGP = evil 15 points

It’s a money spinner for some and an exercise in destroying women’s rights, both of which appeal to the ones pushing it.

[–] MiMi2013 6 points Edited

Years ago, I read about a civil war in the late 19th or early 20th century, somewhere in southeast Asia, called IIRC "the war of the cloth". Basically, this country had a caste system, and as part of caste rules some lower caste men were required to go naked from the waist up. The war kicked off when the ruler of the country decided to make the women of these castes also go about half nude in public . Pretty sure he lost, and the new dress code was NOT imposed on the women, but it's been years.

It seems that a disturbingly high percentage of western countries are run by psychopaths who genuinely hate the non elites of their countries. IMO, that's why they're shoving trans ideology down the public's throat. Sure , the high costs of "medical care" for trans people may be part of it, plus transhumanism, plus a desire to "save the planet" by reducing the human population to the [openly stated since the late 1990s] goal of 1-2 billion by sterilizing children especially...But mostly , it's a gesture of open contempt. It's intended to tell us, You are worthless trash, and the females among you are for all intents and purposes public sex slaves; hence they WILL upon command parade in the nude for the amusement of any intact man sociopathic enough to claim to have a "lady brain" , and you all WILL shit and piss communally, just like any other livestock. You are undeserving of the slightest trace of human dignity.

It has failed to create widespread public outrage because Team Blue is frantic to "virtue-signal" (about many other things too), and has been persuaded that people with intact and functioning penises and testicles are too women if they claim to be [TWAW], even if they don't even bother to put on a dress, a wig, and a little lip gloss [the travesty called 'self ID']. Meanwhile Team Red, despite YEARS of proof to the contrary, is still convinced that men in dresses and wigs are obviously "f@gg0ts" (sorry, but that IS the term they invariably use, and I did semi censor it....), and hence annoying, but no threat to girls and women. They are utterly ignorant of what is meant by terms like transbian, cotton ceiling, autogynephilia, sissy hypno, transtrender, transmaxing... And these are apparently the only people who MIGHT be willing to push back, and HARD, against this poisonous cultlike ideology. :-(

trans and all these gender BS is absolutely a way for the elite class to thumb their noses at working class people and put them in their place, while propping themselves up like the most morally self-righteous. That's why "trans" is now at the pinnacle of the oppression hierarchy. It's got it's own dictionary of weird, funky, to indecipherable terminologies to make working class folks look dumb, ignorant and stupid. When in fact, only the leisure class has time for such bullshit. Working class people got not time for this; they're too busy working hours to pay rent. It's even a way to discriminate against immigrant women who can't understand all the fuckery, both language and dismantling women's spaces, even as these elites claim to care about "oh the poor immigrants".

It's not possible to sneer at the working class and make working class look like buffoons when one's only advocating against racism, or sexism, or homophobia, or for the disabled, etc.

I hate to say it, but I suspect preceding 'listen and believe' activism (at least, as it was applied in practice) has a hand in this as well; something that primed the 'be kind' brigade to just shut their brains off and swallow whatever they were fed, no matter how nonsensical. As someone nonreligious who grew up in an aggressively religious area where people tried to convert me from time to time, that phrase always raised some red flags; being ordered to take something on blind faith is a pretty solid sign something doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[–] SecondSkin 10 points Edited

Like when Westminster banned Scottish clans wearing their tartan. It was a legal step so that the Scottish lowland nobles (who were mostly English decent a generation or two back, or in favour of Westminster rule as long as they got big kick backs) could dismantle the clan system that still lived in the north, and operated using a cooperative system of sharing land for grazing/hunting etc (rather than own it with fencing) and who used their own clan law still (which was mostly more peaceful, with women having comparatively greater freedoms than other societies at that time). Westminster legislated that clans didn’t deserve the freedom to wear their traditional dress, as if they were lesser, so that lowland Scottish nobles could invade and seize ownership of the land through boundary fencing and force the clans off the land and split up family’s so women could be owned as property and others could be thrown out of the country, through forced famine when they could no longer raise sheep, hunt and fish, as they always had. A clans tartan was how they identified ally clans, so they could work together which was necessary ti surviving the harsh Scottish highlands.

Culling those they don’t like, whose way of life is not appealing to the elite.

Agree this feels similar. Elite women can avoid the need for many of the single sex spaces the rest of us rely on to access day to day life.

Fascinating!

The closest thing I could find in a quick search is the Channar Revolt in the Travancore kingdom of India. But this version of the story says that traditionally both women and men had to bare their torsos in the presence of higher-caste people. The revolt happened along with the introduction of Christianity, possibly as a result.

Skipping over a lot of complications:

In 1858, new violence broke out in several places in Travancore. On 26 July 1859, under pressure from Charles Trevelyan, the Madras Governor, the king of Travancore issued a proclamation proclaiming the right for all Nadar women to cover their breasts, either by wearing jackets, like the Christian Nadars, or tie coarse-cloth around their upper-body, like the Mukkavattigal (fisher-women).Yet they were still not allowed to cover their breasts in the style of the higher-class Nair women. This solution was not satisfactory to the missionaries, who regarded all men and women to be equal. Nadar women continued to ignore the restrictions, developing an upper-wear style that resembled the style of the higher class Hindu women, but offended some Hindus as a provocation by the missionaries.

The final note in this article is verrrrry interesting:

The CBSE in December 2016 issued a circular to all 19,000 affiliated schools under it asking that a section 'Caste Conflict and Dress Change' – a chapter that included the Channar revolt – be omitted from the curriculum with effect from 2017.[12]

[–] hmimperialtortie AGP = evil 9 points

Could you get an archive link or copy the text, OP? It’s subscription-only.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 2 points

https://archive.ph/e0xoT

You can fetch these links, btw, by just copying the original link, going to archive.ph, and pasting it into the blue box that's a ways down the page (NOT the red box at the top).
Whether it'll bypass the paywall is kinda random—i think it may just depend on whether someone has a login to input on the back end—but the major US and UK papers should all go through.

I wonder what the comments are like...there are a lot of them