this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
1106 points (99.1% liked)
People Twitter
7784 readers
1548 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The same people insist gender is made-up, and biological sex is the only thing that counts.
Conservatives do not mean things when they say words.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Sartre was optimistic. He believed these people say wrong things on purpose, as a tactic. Like they're rationally advancing a goal through irrational rhetoric.
I think they honestly believe this is how things work. The word-games are their entire worldview. Ideas aren't right or wrong, people are right or wrong, and whatever the people on your side say, you have to shuffle cards to justify it. COVID proved they would continue this behavior whilst gargling their own lungs.
And they think it's all you're doing, because they think that's all there is.
You're touching upon what C.S. Lewis called men without chest in his book The Abolition of Men. From personal experience I believe both the author and you are spot on.
Well I think he was actually spot-on. But this was decades ago. Those people and these tactics have led to a lot of idiots. Those idiots make up the majority of the antisemites these days. You’re right that they’re not consciously running these tactics, but they are just parroting the grifters and conmen the Sartre was speaking of.
They’re despicable, but those kinds of people are smart. However, the mental offspring they shed like dandruff are the idiots you’re thinking of. They don’t do these things with any kind of cognizance. They just live in it. They’re the feeder-stock plugged into The 24hr Fear, and those talking heads employ these tactics. The idiots just emulate.
'But bigots of the past were playing 4D chess!' is a brave opinion to offer.
Nobody invented antisemitism as a clever scheme. It's always been ad-hoc justifications and libelous story-telling, to bolster the kneejerk conclusions of ingroup supremacists. Rational argument has to be taught - tribalist pretense is instinctive to all people. Grifters emerge to take advantage of them, and spread the bullshit, but that dirt was always in your brain.
You think “basic interpersonal skills” or manipulation is “4d chess?” That’s kinda sad.
Antisemitism has been around since long before Sartre wrote a book about them in the 40s. He wasn’t talking about the invention of antisemitism, he was talking about the tactics of undermining logic that are still very present even in the dipshit rightwing now. For fucks sake there was a post on 4chan back in like 2017 talking about it openly—they called it how to piss of libs or some shit, but it’s still the same even if the words have adapted. We think of the right wing as mostly incompetent. But that’s not always the way they were seen. Shit even in my lifetime I remember the era of the neocons, they were scary motherfuckers inside and out. Fox News and the right wing has gone on a 40 year long anti education rout, and we do see that in their followers. But the sort of “joker” persona of the fascist movement isn’t new.
I think it's self-evidently silly to blame ancient patterns of bigotry on specific assholes who secretly know they're wrong.
This card-shuffling behavior, in service to strict hierarchy, has produced organized violence since at least Sulla's civil war in the Roman republic.
To be clear: this is all that conservatives have ever been. They didn't suddenly get stupid. They've always been making shit up. Some of them do the same thing you're doing - they go 'ah ha, this must be a clever move we all pull, despite being total bullshit.' Nope. The vast majority of them honestly think making shit up is all there is.
The distinction is crucial because we can still teach them that words mean things. Rational argument is a learned behavior.
Don't forget, there are plenty of us in the middle. I think gender is a made up social construct, but also that anyone should be able to go through life following whatever social norms they identify with. I don't think boys are born into girl bodies or girls are born into boy bodies, but merely that some boys have more in common w/ society's expectations of girls and vice versa.
It's a distinction w/o a difference, and I'm happy calling you whatever you'd prefer. But if you're born with male chromosomes, you'll always have male chromosomes.
An opinion that sounded progressive a century ago but is now politely-stated bigotry. Actually worse than saying sexual preference isn't real, but hey, people can fuck who they choose. Talking about transition in terms of chromosomes is a dog whistle on par with rattling off birthrates.
Dysphoria is not societal.
I obviously disagree.
I think hormone therapy should obviously be available for those who want them. I admit I don't fully understand trans people, but I firmly believe in making every accommodation for people to live the way they choose, provided it doesn't hurt anyone, but I also don't believe taking hormones turns a biological male I to a biological female or vice versa, nor do I believe gender is anything more than a social construct to label people.
It's quite possible I'm wrong, I'm not a neuroscientist or anything, and brain stuff is weird. But I also don't think it particularly matters if at the end of the day, you and I treat people the same.
Reasons matter. They inevitably emerge as differences in conclusion. A lot of JK Rowling's bullshit begins by denying that trans women are women - and given your libertarian bent, I worry there's some overlap. Rugged individualism does not address gendered sports, or bathrooms, or indeed sexual abuse shelters.
I doubt it. I don't know much about JK Rowling's politics other than a few statements about trans women. But here are my takes on those things you mentioned:
I really don't care if someone chooses to be treated as the opposite sex, and I'll call them by whatever pronouns they prefer, because I'm not a jerk. We have a trans woman at our local library, and the only reason I noticed is because they transitioned while we were routinely going there, and I made the connection that the man who used to work there is probably the woman who now works there. I'm totally happy using whatever terminology trans people want, I just disagree that there's some innate concept of gender, but that sex is the only thing that exists in reality (chromosomes and anatomy don't change, even after surgery), and that gender roles are largely invented (though inherited from physical characteristics; e.g. women are child nurturers because they were the ones who produced the milk for thousands of years).
I think it's largely a distinction without a difference. I probably treat trans people similarly to how you do, I just disagree about what "gender" is. I think it's an idea we've largely invented to describe social roles, and in our modern age, those roles are a bit more fluid. Some women are the sole breadwinners of their family, and some men are the child rearers. Some women are absolutely shredded (like the woman in the picture above), and some men are very effeminate. I think the real problem here is that the terms "man" and "woman" have become so loaded, so much so that people don't feel comfortable identifying as the label that matches their anatomy.
Honestly, I think it's completely reasonable that people would prefer to switch genders rather than fight to fix the assumptions and whatnot that we have associated with gender. So I absolutely support trans people because sometimes the partial fix is more than sufficient, and I support any policies that give people the choice to identify however they choose, provided that doesn't provide them with an unfair advantage in some way.
So yeah, I don't think the reason matters as much as you say. It's completely reasonable to believe something to be true while supporting something that seemingly goes against it for other reasons. I believe in maximizing individual liberty as much as possible w/o infringing on others' rights. I think everyone should be able to live the way they choose, provided they don't interfere w/ others doing the exact same thing.
Respect each other, and fight for them to be able to live how they choose. That's more-or-less my political philosophy.