9
HumorGender-critical animation - CYBERGIRLZ
Didn’t see any other threads on the topic; mods, please remove if I missed it.
The animation, by creators Sillypoo, came out on international women’s day, and is the most glorious peep back at web 1.0 for those other ladies here who were regular netizens in the late 90s and through the 2000s. Aside from the massive prevalence of sexual predators in every single “teen” AOL chat room or usenet forum I remember being on (asl? 32/m/nj… 13/f/FR shudder), it was a much more freeing time. I remember so many female forums, spaces for teen girls to chat about really mundane things, and I made a number of friends through the internet in the late 90s.
The animation itself, while in the style of that Geocities era, is a pastiche on how men (particularly trans identifying men) have put an absolute end to women’s spaces online. It features several well-known real life people… see if you recognise them?
It’s full of references which I really hope other women on here get; my favourite was at the beginning, there is a poster on the wall of a singer… I had that album (by a Japanese artist) and it was one of my favourites when I was about 12.
The backing music isn’t original, I believe it was used in Dance Dance Revolution, but the vaguely anime vibe of it is wonderful for what it depicts.
I shan’t spoil the ending, but it is entertaining. I laughed so much when I first saw it, as well as crying weirdly as it touched part of me I had forgotten was in me. While it is certainly aimed at those women in their 30s who spent probably too much time online in their youth, I wonder if anyone else has any thoughts; what did you think? Did you recognise anyone? What did you think of how trans-identifying men were portrayed; any notable omissions?
I think the tide is turning in the private sphere. I don’t think it’s made it to the public sphere yet but it’s only a matter of time.
Like another commenter mentioned, at this time last year it was next to impossible to find material from mainstream sources criticizing trans ideology. I am starting to see more criticism even in non-GC corners of the internet, which always surprises me.
Definitely. Pieces like this come to mind:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html
Almost everyone has a breaking point, and I think even some of the most devoted former acolytes are being presented with developments that even they cannot explain away. If even only a fraction of what GCs and other dissenters have been saying for years is true, it really is only a matter of time until it becomes a full-scale international scandal.
There are articles coming out now that are tepid criticism of transactivism. It's tepid, but the fact is, at this time last year, those articles would not have been published by those news outlets.
I've lost count now of exactly how many people in my professional life have removed pronouns from their signature lines. That seems to be a definite trend.
Some people are not going to ever change their point of view, but everyone else just kind of moves along without those people. That's how I think this will go.
The only way it becomes a fast process is if something really catastrophic happens, and everyone has to turn their focus on that for survival purposes. I really hope that does not happen.
I’ve noticed many of the same things.
Ultimately, I think you’re right, the most plausible future seems to be one in which most of our society and institutions will arrive at a post-trans reality, having reckoned and learned. I think there will always be people who subscribe to gender ideology and live accordingly, just as there are still people who believe that Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs are anti-Christian propaganda, but the majority who do not share their views and refuse to bow to them will no longer be castigated. There will always be believers, but their grip will loosen and they will be relegated to their own communities, both socially and legally. And yes, hopefully no further catastrophe will be needed.
I have a feeling even some of the true believers will start backpedalling as more and more TIPs age, develop long-term health problems, and stop taking cross-sex hormones to salvage what's left of their health.
Just my perspective, but it’s difficult for me to truly feel hopeful of the turning tides when the evidence of said turning also mostly comes at a detriment to me as a lesbian woman. The forced teaming of the T with the LGB means that much of the pushback to the T is hand in hand with emboldened pushback to the LGB as well. It just feels like a very precarious position to me.
Do I think the whole ideology will fall out of favor and fashion? Yes, I think it has already started, very slowly. However I also feel that we are getting dragged down with it. I fear another increase in homophobia, exacerbated by this incoming administration. I fear that not enough on the left/Dems/progressives/whatever will be willing to admit that they were wrong, that hitching their horses to the trans wagon was a mistake, leaving the real heavy lifting of pushback to the people that do not have women’s and gays/lesbians’ best interests in mind; most of what I’ve seen is still coming from the standard conservative type who are also just as happy to erode women’s rights etc along the way, and I haven’t seen enough evidence of other people speaking out to be very encouraging to me. I know it’s happening, but not on a sufficient enough scale…not yet, anyway.
I do think things are changing, but I’m very concerned about the additional battles we’re about to face with it.
I'm in the G camp myself and I agree that the marriage of the T to the LGB jeopardizes the entire group. I think there are many reasons the association formed, but needless to say it has created a totally false sense that there is a real community of "LGBTQ people" who share characteristics, needs, and values, and who certainly never come into conflict with each other.
I share many of your fears, especially given that the strongest pushback is obviously coming from conservatives in the US, and many (but certainly not all) are not approaching this issue from the same angle that we are. That being said, there are some indicators that Americans of all political stripes have settled into basic acceptance of LGB people; for example, polling consistently shows a majority of Republicans now approve of same-sex marriage, and both Trump administrations have included a gay cabinet member (something I only recently learned). I hate to belabor identity politics like that, but I think it's fascinating that I have never heard so much as a peep, positive or negative, about that, especially given that the first, Richard Grenell, was the first openly gay cabinet member in history. It seems to me that there would have been uproar had a Republican president just 15 years ago appointed an openly gay man. Not to mention that the Dems would have flaunted it ad nauseam (I was almost convinced Buttigieg was the first). But you are right that things can change quickly and have before, and it seems like now would be the time for the homophobic pushback if it's going to happen. Ultimately, that's why I place more stock in signs of change on the left and among the Democrats-- that would be far more significant.
If there's one thing I've learned about "progressive" elites, it's that they're never wrong. Ever. That's a hard group of people to debate with.
And sadly, these people are all journalists, academics and politicians. They hold a lot of power. They create the narrative. They're failing a bit, but make no mistake, we are at a massive disadvantage. They have Google turning up biased search results for them. They have Wikipedia pretending to be non-partisan but pushing their agenda. They have nearly the entirety of the entertainment industry in their palm. Virtually every celebrity young kids enjoy is out there praising gender ideology.
This will not be a quick fix. And in the end, it will likely be conservatives and heterodox men who receive the credit for defeating gender ideology. A lot of the women involved will likely remain cancelled. No one will remember why, just that hating women is really fucking fun.
Sorry to be depressing, but I think anyone saying stuff like "it's over" is being unrealistic or overly optimistic. Powerful people don't like being defeated.
I think you are correct. I think things will get better, but it will be a long, hard struggle.
I think the larger public is peaking VERY fast, weil smaller groups are quite literally holding onto it agressively. There, they in turn make their own Echochambers.
It feels to me like the tide is turning in that it is becoming more broadly arguable. I've seen a couple tentative angles on "maybe we should discuss this" in academic areas, which was completely taboo until recently, and more liberals are at least aware that it's going on.
I know plenty of lefty people who are pro-trans and have been the whole time, but I also know some portion who until fairly recently simply didn't think it was an issue at all, and now are at least acknowledging that it may be affecting things, even that some rules don't make sense, but get annoyed that people "take it so seriously" - basically, make claims about how it's an obsession over a tiny amount of people. "Sure sure, I agree w you about that gender stuff, but come on! You're going to let the fascists win bc of that?"
I've been hoping for the tide to turn for almost a decade now and have continuously seen hope and then been disappointed, and over recent years, I have not believed any new moments were going to make a significant difference. To me, as depressing as it is, it felt like Trump winning was a turning point for speaking up though.
I think a lot of people who felt culturally suppressed about being open were made more brave by the Dems losing, bc it's pretty clear no one who voted for Trump would have been TRA, and that there is probably quite a big divide among the Dems, enough that some tiny portion of them would go so far as to vote Repub. It should hardly be a surprise that ordinary people wouldn't embrace this stuff, but the media and liberal circles push it so consistently, presume things and use language as if it's factual (newspapers using preferred pronouns, eg) that it's easy to get confused. Seeing the election reminded the population that what the media thinks is not what everyone thinks.
That may seem minor but I'd bet it was enough of a nudge in enough circles to start a few conversations or email exchanges, which in turn would have a slight ripple effect. None of this is enormous, but it still gets the topic out there way more than it was, or was going to be with Kamala winning.
I think the main risk/ downside now is how bad Trump is in office, and how much that swings back against GC (who will be associated with the conservative side whether they like it or not). Either the dems can see this is a real problem and make an honest effort to reboot, address the ways the party has gone astray and figure out a new approach, or they keep on the path they're on which I think has multiple negatives at this point that people are responding to (not just TRA but a lot of the larger "woke" attitude). But if Trump is too much, the Dems may regain power and then feel vindicated to keep going in the same direction
I don't think we're stuck between Hitler & Stalin or anything, but when people accuse Trump of being as bad as Hitler I feel like it's about the same level to accuse the Dems of being like Stalin. The amount of propaganda, indoctrination, suppression of disagreement, was starting to get scary. The point there being, you can have two very unhappy options to be stuck between, (tho ours are not the same level as midcentury europe). I am really hoping that somehow there can be some normal conversations among some democrats or independents or people fed up with politics after Biden's out.
So I think it's a larger political question. Will the democratic party change its overall approach after this defeat, or will there be some kind of new party that rises up, or some kind of reconfiguring amongst the various members of parties... It feels like a strange place historically that keeps building up to potential disasters, but possibly could develop into some reflective self-analysis and interesting outcomes.
I think the tide is turning but unfortunately will take a lot pf things we like with it
The Hill has published a few articles by Kara Dansky in the past year. I see that as being huge. If we can reach liberals with a feminist critique of the trans movement then most of them will agree with us. The problem was all the social media bans and liberal media blackouts.
The TRAs tried very, very hard to portray this as a partisan issue with the trans movement on the left and the "transphobes" on the right. Most liberals went along with it simply because they knew the conservatives were haters. Breaking through the silencing and telling people that feminists oppose it too is huge!
I don't think Kara's articles went full-on feminist analysis and laying bare all of the rank misogyny but I do think it's a step in the right direction. But, most of all, the fact that The Hill editors agreed to publish her is the real win.
Yeah, I absolutely agree that the role of blind partisanship has been enormous.
And I’ve noticed similar things with publications like the NYT, and other instances of big media companies sticking to their people in a way they might not have years ago, like The Atlantic with Helen Lewis or the HBO head’s recent statements about Rowling.
Pshaw. Helen Lewis is all about trans except admitting that there might be a reason to keep men from cheating in women’s sports. She’s still mostly all-in with the idea that men pretending to be women are in need of using women’s bathrooms and being genuflected to.
That recent article in the Atlantic she wrote was far too little, too late.
I peaked in 2012. The tide is definitely turning, but this was never going to be a quick fix because of the way T glommed onto LGB and used stealth influence and legislation tactics. I also agree with other commenters that politicians aren't necessarily going to proactively lead the way out of this maze any more than mainstream journalists.
My sense has been that in the US the real pressure for change would come from sports and parents concerned about their children in school and public bathrooms and changing rooms, and that's exactly where the wave is breaking.
I don't know how or when the progressive left will shift on this, or whether they'll gradually and quietly abandon it as the courts sort it out (from "gender affirmation" of minors to clarification of sex-based categories). As a thought experiment, a progressive politician with a history of TRA could sidestep the issue if "trans" procedure legislation reverts to states and women's rights are defined and supported as sex-based -- an "Oh well, we tried, it's out of our hands" kind of move.
Well I just got banned for three days on Reddit for stating I was happy that the bill banning men from women's sports happened and that I hope a third league is created for all athletes affected. So. No the tide can't be turning everywhere.
As I think about this more, I think the only way to really get a reversal is for the medical establishment to put the brakes on. Too many of my left leaning, TRA friends fall back on "medical necessity", "proven" or standard of care, etc.
How does that happen? More lawsuits by detransitioners? More reports like the Cass Review?
Yes, things are definitely turning. But there are people in particular positions in our institutions that will take a long time to oust.
It seems to me we always appear to take one step forward then two steps back.... then maybe 3 or 4 steps forward and 1 back.
This is a marathon not a sprint.
I believe the tide is turning, especially within those in my age bracket (24), but I am afraid that it is also taking LGB with it. I've seen increased homophobia due to the T being parasitic.
I am in the same age bracket and definitely have peers who are GC or close to it, but this has also come after years of being locked in the most radical trans echo chambers around. I haven’t personally experienced a lot of homophobia, but I can definitely see all the many opportunities for it as a result of the association with the trans movement.
To name an example: I am a proponent of comprehensive and appropriate sexual health education in schools. I believe that, especially in a country like the US, children nearing puberty should learn in basic terms that there are people who are attracted to the same sex and they may turn out to be one of them. I think this would make a massive difference in the lives of a lot of young people, especially those who do not conform from a young age. But I absolutely do not think that these lessons should teach children as a matter of fact that they have a gender identity, that it is distinct from their sex, that there are infinite genders, that sex is imaginary, that they could be trans, etc. I think this is harmful to the very same young people. But when you look at individual sentiments about sex ed in schools, and the resulting policies, you see it all being lumped together. I would support a ban on teaching gender identity as hard science in public schools, but almost all of the bans proposed or passed also prohibit even mentioning the existence of LGB people.
Not to mention that for a long list of reasons, the LGB population have been made into some of the most zealous supporters of the T. So I think there is a blame of sorts placed on all LGB people for something viewed as part of their movement, despite the fact that it is so incredibly different and many LGB people do not support what TRAs argue for. And, in fact, we have found ourselves uniquely victimized by the movement.
After yesterday's vote in the House, where only 2 Democrats would vote for a bill to keep boys out of girls sports, I am not optimistic. I also am very dismayed to discover that none of my democratic friends is rethinking trans in light of the election results. Instead, they are doubling down.
The tide is turning, the politicians will be the last to move with it. Democrats are very afraid of being accused of transphobia for even the slightest offense against the trans religion, they will only admit that men have an advantage in sports when it is very safe to do so.
Sure, but this did come to a vote -
And there was not one, but TWO Democrats voting for it!
At the moment, I personally am looking at this as "glass half full".
well, glass 2/208ths full at least... but still, baby steps.
Seth Moulton voting no is the biggest disappointment TBH. Rep. Moulton alrdy made himself an apostate for saying last month that his two Daughters deserve the safety and fairness of single-sex sports, so... he may as well just stay the course and vote the GC side of everything else from here on out—it's not like the TRAs are going to forgive him or decide not to try 'primarying' him.
That IS a disappointment, yes.
This is two steps forward, one step back, though!
I see the same thing, doubling down.
Repeating all of the usual tropes: girls sports? But it is just a few transgirls. Why do you want to do genital inspections? Bathrooms? Don't you know the stalls are separate? Etc. Leaving Twitter/X (which is a good idea, actually) and going to the BlueSky echo chamber.
“You already have a gender neutral bathroom in your own house! Gotcha!”
I forgot about that one!
I'll conclude the tide has truly turned when the wine moms I know question either TIMs in female sports or medically transitioning children. But, like your friends, they're currently doubling down and think Harper Steele practically walks on water.