Culture Does Gen Z have a transphobia problem? - It’s often assumed that all young people are ultra-progressive – but this isn’t always the case

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

1337392.jpg
London Trans+ Pride March 2022

23 January 2023
Serena Smith

There are a lot of stereotypes about Gen Z. We all hate working. We’re brain-dead TikTok addicts. We like to eat Tide pods and chicken stewed in cough syrup. Some are more positive, admittedly: it’s often assumed that we all support social justice issues like the fight for trans rights, the Black Lives Matter movement and climate justice. But is there really any truth in any of these big, sweeping assumptions? Can we really claim to generalise about a demographic that makes up nearly 20 per cent of the UK population?

There is research to suggest that Gen Z genuinely are the most progressive generation. 77 per cent of all young voters went for progressive parties in the 2019 election. Nearly half of young Brits believe systemic racism is a major problem facing the UK. When it comes to trans rights, research from the More in Common think tank found that 62 per cent of Gen Z agreed with the statement “trans men are men, trans women are women”.

This isn’t particularly surprising. “This is a very common pattern for emerging social issues – where it’s not an issue many will have thought about even in the relatively recent past, but the increased profile and focus will increase awareness and understanding over time,” Professor Bobby Duffy, author of Generations: Does When You’re Born Shape Who You Are? tells Dazed. He explains that younger generations are often quicker to embrace changes in social attitudes as they’re more “malleable in their thinking”. As Duffy says, being more receptive to progressive beliefs isn’t really a ‘Gen Z’ thing, though – it’s a ‘young person’ thing. Nowadays, for instance, baby boomers are often perceived as stubborn and regressive (see also: the ‘OK boomer’ meme). But when they were young, they were champions of social justice issues of their time, such as the anti-war movement and sexual liberation.

Of course, it’s erroneous to suggest that every single young person in the 60s and 70s spent their time shagging, protesting and swanning around in bell-sleeve mini-dresses. Equally, it’s a bit of an overblown claim to presume that all Gen Z today are extremely socially liberal and dedicated to fighting for progressive causes. “We tend to stereotype Gen Z as universally ‘woke’,” Duffy says. “But there is much more nuance than we’re led to believe in attitudes.”

Notably, anti-trans sentiments seem particularly common among Gen Z. As aforementioned, while a 62 per cent majority of Gen Z agree that “trans men are men, trans women are women”, that still leaves us with 10 per cent who “don’t know” and 28 per cent who actively disagree – hardly insignificant numbers. Many people might assume that TERFs are almost exclusively middle-class, 50-something white women who post about “trans” on Mumsnet and sycophantically reply to every JK Rowling tweet by saying “Spot on once again, Jo 👏” – and while this demographic does undoubtedly account for a lot of TERFs, it does seem as though there’s a worrying number of younger TERFs too.

While undeniably a minority, transphobic young people are particularly vocal, especially on platforms like Twitter and TikTok where anti-trans sentiments often proliferate within online ‘radfem’ communities. “It’s incredibly easy to get sucked into an alt-right wormhole on social media sites,” Eliott, 22, tells Dazed. “On Twitter you often see young people liking a few radical feminist tweets, and then a few months later they’re a full-blown anti-trans TERF.”

radfem baby terf twitter actually one of the scariest parts of this website cos everyone’s been focused on the old ones while they’re appearing on the timeline more and more every day
— Sock Is A Slur (@leoliveeeeee) October 12, 2022

This can be largely ascribed to the way social media algorithms operate. Generally speaking, algorithms are designed to show people increasingly extreme content, as the more enraged and angry users are, the more engagement spikes – and the more money tech execs make. “The speed at which this happens is even more marked on TikTok because of the nature of the algorithm,” Eliott adds. He’s right: despite TikTok recently banning deadnaming and misgendering trans people, a 2021 report from Media Matters found that TikTok’s recommendation algorithm actually promotes homophobia and anti-trans violence.

It’s not just social media which is engendering transphobia among Gen Z – the press, particularly in the UK, is plagued with anti-trans rhetoric. 23-year-old Ellie recently overheard two students being transphobic while using a public bathroom. “They were saying that we shouldn’t be allowed to use the toilets which align with our gender,” she recalls. “Ironically, when I came out of the cubicle to wash my hands I stood right next to them and they had no idea that the very thing they were complaining about was happening right next to them.”

“It was very clear that they didn’t understand what it meant to be trans,” Ellie continues. “I’m not defending them in any way [...] but they were just talking about an issue that they’ve seen so much in the media and trying to formulate an opinion on it. It’s only natural that they came to such a negative conclusion because of so much of the misinformation, fearmongering, and general toxicity that the UK media has perpetuated over the past few years.” 21-year-old Louis agrees. “I still have a lot of people I went to school with on socials, and it’s so weird because I would genuinely say the majority of them are actually outwardly anti-trans,” he says. “I know people my age who love GB News. It’s so weird – like, that is a news outlet that is made for fucking 50-year-old gammons.”

“On Twitter you often see young people liking a few radical feminist tweets, and then a few months later they’re a full-blown anti-trans TERF” – Eliott

According to analysis by author and trans advocate Shon Faye, in 2020 alone The Times and The Sunday Times published “over 300 articles [about trans issues], almost one a day, and they were all negative”. Elsewhere, transphobes pop up on daytime TV, politicians are asked inflammatory and reductive questions like “can a woman have a penis?”, and columnists refer to the so-called “trans lobby”. It’s also telling that the media treats something as fundamental as trans rights as “up for debate” in the first place. So, it’s not hugely surprising that young people are absorbing transphobic sentiments when they’ve been allowed to proliferate so much in mainstream media.

21-year-old Louis – who lives in Essex – also adds that he suspects anti-trans views are, generally speaking, more prevalent outside of London and in groups of young people who perhaps haven’t encountered more liberal attitudes at university. Research does back this up: a September 2022 survey from the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) found that a third of Londoners are socially liberal, compared with just 19 per cent of those in urban areas outside the capital. “It would be oversimplifying it to say that these TERF-y sentiments are expected because Southend is a working-class town,” Louis says. “But people are generally scared of change, especially change they don’t understand. So all the hatred comes from a place of the world moving forward, and deep down these people are scared that they’re getting left behind.”

None of this is to say that we aren’t making progress – as aforementioned, attitudes are clearly shifting, with generations becoming increasingly supportive of trans rights over time. Additionally, the fact remains that millennials aren’t becoming more conservative with age – as has been the case for over 100 years – and there’s no huge reason to doubt that Gen Z will follow suit. But that said, we need to do away with the popular conceit that ‘Gen Z will save us’, which glosses over the fact that swathes of young people are being taken in by the unrelenting deluge of anti-trans rhetoric both in the media and on social media. “I think complacency is a far bigger danger to trans people than the actual [anti-trans] radicals themselves,” Eliott says. “Look at the gender recognition bill that was blocked: that would have been voted down if Labour had voted against it, but just 11 Labour MPs voted against it and the rest abstained.” Evidently, while the fight for trans rights is making progress, it’s certainly not a battle won.
 
It always amuses me how many leftie fags ignore that Karl Marx considered sexual degeneracy to be a vice of the wealthy classes that needed to be stamped out.

Even the neomarxist Frankfurt School recognized this. Yes, they pushed homosexuality and other forms of sexual degeneracy to be normalized, but even they admitted that their agenda was a form of accelerationism. They were frustrated that developed countries do not organically have communist revolutions, so they realized that they needed to make "capitalism" reach critical mass and implode on itself.

It's not entirely accurate to say that the Frankfurt School wanted to subvert society and turn it into a communist society, they wanted to subvert society to turn it into a caricature of a capitalist one so that a communist revolution would overthrow it.

Ironically, most leftists today don't even realize that, they unironically think that the "struggles" that upper class faggots face is similar to what the working class goes through, and that they'd be allies. Thus the people today most likely to spark a revolution against the rich elite aren't communists, but rightists. Those that don't hate capitalism, free markets, hierarchy, or even wealthy people per-say, they only hate the progressive elite. Thus capitalism doesn't get overthrown, only specific retarded rich people.

Because communism and anarchism were, and always will be, pet projects of the rich and stupid. Like a wise man once said, the working class may object to being governed badly, but the rich elite object to being governed at all.

Men crafted the Troon ideology to begin with.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good deal of feminist ideology was crafted by men.

I can't even name a single feminist idea that the evil patriarchal capitalist illuminati hasn't been able to subvert and use against woman.

Women voting? Sure, may be good on paper, but judging by the sheer amount of handmaidens who continue to simp for troons, I don't think it's the first time that the majority of women have been successfully duped into voting against their own best interests. There seems to be a consistent pattern of women simply playing it safe and going with what (they perceive to be) the winning side, and that it's unfair to expect them to stand up for the right thing in the face of opposition. Either that or they're easier to sway by dark triad personality types who resort to emotional propaganda and manipulation, because such women think with their wombs and not their brains. "Be Kind," in other words. "Be kind" to psychopathic troons who do not feel empathy themselves, but gladly take advantage of the fact that other people do feel empathy. We can debate all day whether it's fair to exclude women from the vote or not, but it's a gross oversimplification to say that we did it back then because we were meaners and misogynistic assholes.

Women in the workforce? Yay, now the capitalist machine gets more wage slaves, and stay-at-home women are shamed and mocked in popular media. I thought leftists hated capitalism?

Abortion? Great, now rapists can force their victims to abort in order to cover up their crimes, and best of all, even Planned Parenthood will explicitly help child predators to do so, and even give their clients instructions on how to avoid attention from law enforcement. Now businesses can fund their female workers' abortions so that they are spared the trouble of paying maternity leave, or losing their female workers altogether.

Emasculating men? Suppressing masculinity? Doesn't matter how low the testosterone count is, or how much men try to suppress their masculine attributes. Men are men, and unless they're given a constructive outlet for their masculine attributes, or father figures to teach them how exactly to find said constructive outlets, they turn out to be even more dangerous than otherwise. Soyboys and femboys are even more violent, even more entitled, and more misogynistic than traditionally masculine men.

Sex positivity? Was pushed very hard in the 60s and 70s by feminists, and needless to say, turned bitter on their tongues, even those who pushed it in the first place.

Childlessness and hedonism? See above point.

Thanks to feminism, we've gotten a patriarchy ruled by porn addicts, troons, and soyboys.

Saying that it's not "true feminism" is just as retarded as claiming it wasn't "true communism" when the communist regime the revolutionaries fought for very rapidly devolves into a state capitalist hellhole, or an orgy of violence, public shitting, or individuals imposing their unrighteous whims onto others, like CHAZ or anarchist Spain.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed a worrying trend in a lot of people in my age group under the age of 25 (I'm not completely sure what age cuts off zoomer and millennial, but IMO its 25 and under) is that the ones that are more politically aware are a-OK with authoritarian control when it's their side doing it. Now you might say "isn't that everyone to an extent?", and I would agree with you; however so many zoomers are perfectly fine with their side taking complete control and stripping away their rights so long as their "enemies" get fucked. The rest of zoomers don't give a fuck. Like at all. At best they will troll you or say they support current thing because they don't want to deal with some potential troon banshee reeeeing at them since they literally grew up with the fuckers and know how they react.

A lot of you are saying "the majority just don't give a fuck at all" and it's true, and its a major problem. The hope and care is so far gone that while boomers would cry to the heavens if America became a dictatorship tommorow most zoomers would either just shrug their shoulders, or even worse nod their heads and go "its about time" depending on the beliefs of said dictator. You really shouldn't care about politics too much since that shit isn't healthy and we see where it leads to. However this is beyond that, its total apathy.

We are fucked. The politically active left wing zoomers are the ones you see constantly shitting up twitter, trooning out, sperging about microaggressions, etc. They're following straight into the footsteps of leftist millennials.

Right wing zoomers are either country boys that are lolberts, or kids that got bullied in school that now post constant edgelord shit online to "troll the libs". The rest will just not give a fuck unless it directly affects them heavily, and by that point they will probably just "shut up and do what you're told" by whoever holds the reins in the future.

However I might be wrong on that last point. I am very interested to see what happens when boomers finally start dying off en masse due to old age and gen X becomes the new boomers while the zoomers get to age 35+. Oh things are going to be far worse believe me, but maybe that adversity will actually get peoples heads out their asses and get around to caring about and fixing things.....or just making it worse.
Almost the entirety of the current under 25 generation is fine with gutting the 1A and 2A by criminalizing speech, and banning/confiscating guns. That tells me all I need to know. I'm glad I probably won't live long enough to see the Commie Utopia these little shits envision.

America as it was founded no longer exists. Get fucked, progressives.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if a good deal of feminist ideology was crafted by men.

I can't even name a single feminist idea that the evil patriarchal capitalist illuminati hasn't been able to subvert and use against woman.

Women voting? Sure, may be good on paper, but judging by the sheer amount of handmaidens who continue to simp for troons, I don't think it's the first time that the majority of women have been successfully duped into voting against their own best interests. There seems to be a consistent pattern of women simply playing it safe and going with what (they perceive to be) the winning side, and that it's unfair to expect them to stand up for the right thing in the face of opposition. We can debate all day whether it's fair to exclude women from the vote or not, but it's a gross oversimplification to say that we did it back then because we were meaners and misogynistic assholes.
Going by voting patterns, women tend to vote in line with their men. Conservative women will vote with conservative men, and vice versa. Age and education do play a factor, but women are not a single minded voting bloc. It can go either way you want, but even as far back as the Middle Ages women were usually the first ones protesting, be it casting ballots to their liege lord over a broken bridge or demanding the King not apply new taxes.

On the flip side, you had many women support men like Hitler (Godwin's Law, I know) because he backed up his policies with generous maternity and family leave. An extra kid was 25% off taxes, and the more you had, the less taxes you had to pay on a house. He understood that, and he gained the women's vote.

(Such policies are also in place in Hungary, in an effort to both reduce the abortion rate and raise the TFR.)
Women in the workforce? Yay, now the capitalist machine gets more wage slaves, and stay-at-home women are shamed and mocked in popular media. I thought leftists hated capitalism?

Abortion? Great, now rapists can force their victims to abort in order to cover up their crimes, and best of all, even Planned Parenthood will explicitly help child predators to do so, and even give their clients instructions on how to avoid attention from law enforcement. Now businesses can fund their female workers' abortions so that they are spared the trouble of paying maternity leave, or losing their female workers altogether.
Maternity leave/family leave should be a thing. America does not have it, or it is determinant on your workplace. In any case, when it comes to rapists, many won't see the inside of a jail and even IF you demanded the woman to have the kid, the rapist can indeed sue for custody. It has happened.

Matt Walsh infamously said exactly this and, predictably, it didn't go well. Those kinds of pregnancies are very traumatic, and can ruin future pregnancies for wanted children. In teens, it affects their physiology even more, but I digress.


Emasculating men? Suppressing masculinity? Doesn't matter how low the testosterone count is, or how much men try to suppress their masculine attributes. Men are men, and unless they're given a constructive outlet for their masculine attributes, or father figures to teach them how exactly to find said constructive outlets, they turn out to be even more dangerous than otherwise. Soyboys and femboys are even more violent, even more entitled, and more misogynistic than traditionally masculine men.

Sex positivity? Was pushed very hard in the 60s and 70s by feminists, and needless to say, turned bitter on their tongues, even those who pushed it in the first place.
Sex positivity has its roots in the 1880s, when gay rights organizations were beginning to be formed (this website goes into detail). Even Marx wrote on it, mentioning how sexual liberation was antithetical to Marxism. Stalin infamously crushed the 'sex positive' Bolsheviks when he rose to power, and the 1920s in general saw a niche of sex positivism/feminism. Second wave feminists were reactionary (and of a similar ethnic group), and varied between sex positive feminists to anti porn feminists like Dworkin. Today, Gloria Steinem is a TWAW 'feminist', while Germaine Greer has stayed true to her beliefs. Guess which one got the most heat?
Childlessness and hedonism? See above point.

Thanks to feminism, we've gotten a patriarchy ruled by porn addicts, troons, and soyboys.

Saying that it's not "true feminism" is just as retarded as claiming it wasn't "true communism" when the communist regime the revolutionaries fought for very rapidly devolves into a state capitalist hellhole, or an orgy of violence, public shitting, or individuals imposing their unrighteous whims onto others, like CHAZ or anarchist Spain.
Pornography has a long and sordid history, but feminists did not start that. Objectively, the smuthounds of the 1880s-1930s were predominately men. Looking at the smut written between men and women reveals a stark difference. Comstock Laws prevented such material from being distributed, even when it was not pornographic (such as anatomy manuals on female reproductive health or birth control). "Unclean Lips" details the numerous Supreme Court cases of whether smut/porn constituted a First Amendment issue. Unsurprisingly, very few of those involved were women.

de Sade was the ultimate hedonist, and the guy who coined the term 'masochism' was equally a degenerate. Degeneracy saw its birth in the waning years of the 1700s, before emerging in the 1800s. Victorian prudishness and 'fear' of sex was a reaction to that.

The split of libfems and radfems on this issue illustrates it well.
 
Going by voting patterns, women tend to vote in line with their men.

But what happens when the marriage rates are at an all-time low?

Stalin infamously crushed the 'sex positive' Bolsheviks when he rose to power, and the 1920s in general saw a niche of sex positivism/feminism.

Strikes me less as Stalin being a meaner and more along the lines of him being pragmatic. I'm under the impression that the sexual revolution in the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own even without Stalin's help.


Matt Walsh infamously said exactly this and, predictably, it didn't go well. Those kinds of pregnancies are very traumatic, and can ruin future pregnancies for wanted children. In teens, it affects their physiology even more, but I digress.

Even though pregnancies that threaten the life/health of the mother should not continue (underage pregnancies automatically fall under this), that still doesn't change the fact that Planned Parenthood actively avoids reporting underage pregnancies to the police, and even goes out of their way to cover things up so that the father can get off scott free for his actions.

Restricting abortion to the case of rape or physical health would actually ensure that fewer rapists get off scott free, not because the pregnancy is a telltale sign that the woman was victimized, but because the fact that she had an abortion is a telltale sign that she was victimized, and it would be easier for her to admit she was raped, and to name names and collect evidence.

The split of libfems and radfems on this issue illustrates it well.

In that case, I'd reject feminism for the same reason I'd reject libertarian communism: It's too easily subverted by their supposed hated enemies, like the patriarchal or capitalist illuminati respectively.
 
The people who crafted troonism were not women. Hirschfeld wasn't a woman. Alfred Kinsey and John Money weren't women. So yeah, men started it, wrote the theory and crafted the drugs, and it's the male troons dominating the discourse.

People cannot decide whether women are destroyers of civilization or are corrupted by it. In either case, males were cross dressing as AGPs and HSTS for centuries while women weren't legally allowed to wear trousers.

And it affects you when you have children. The Texas father who lost custody of his kid is a direct result of that blase attitude. Aidens may not be as aggressive as MTFs, but they're adamant on changing gay men's sexual orientation, so yes, you are affected. This doesn't happen in a vacuum.

It also confirms my point that men won't do a thing until it personally affects them. Letting the rot spread doesn't save civilization.

@The Ugly One Men aren't doing this anyways. Even if women were disenfranchised of the vote, you still get what Iran has: state funded troonism as a replacement for homosexuality. On polls regarding trans in women's spaces, men might say they're against it, but the dialogue isn't centered on them fixing their own spaces. Troons know this.

You might get angry at that snarling bitch talking about vaginas, but she's admitting physical differences exist.

@Ser Prize see point above. Men crafted the Troon ideology to begin with. This also underscores why feminism was needed at all, if gender relations were already good.
(((Men))) crafting the troon and faggot agenda is something I will grant you. But I've seen way more women advocate for faggots and troons than men. It's why terms like 'faghag' exist. And look at voting broken up by sex in the US; you'll see women do vote overwhelmingly blue these days.

I don't really blame women for most of this, despite it all. They had their intentions subverted by marxists. But I do blame women for not being able to admit it and fix their trajectory. They want to keep all the 20th/21st century rigging of academia/corporations/justice system in their favour and refuse to look back and help men, who are struggling as a whole. We both need eachother here and that's why I don't support radfems, because they still see men as the enemy.
 
(((Men))) crafting the troon and faggot agenda is something I will grant you. But I've seen way more women advocate for faggots and troons than men. It's why terms like 'faghag' exist. And look at voting broken up by sex in the US; you'll see women do vote overwhelmingly blue these days.

I don't really blame women for most of this, despite it all. They had their intentions subverted by marxists. But I do blame women for not being able to admit it and fix their trajectory. They want to keep all the 20th/21st century rigging of academia/corporations/justice system in their favour and refuse to look back and help men, who are struggling as a whole. We both need eachother here and that's why I don't support radfems, because they still see men as the enemy.
Maybe. But faghags are a response. The OG gay rights movement was dominated by gay men, whereas lesbians tended to be separate. It was lesbians, remember, who had to kick out the gay men involved in NAMBLA. It was quite the scandal at the time.

Either women are a reactionary species, or instigators of the fall of civilization. Having been around right wing circles, most 'trads' believe it the latter, while remaining ignorant on history.

If men are struggling, this does fit with the radfem suspicion that men do not help with troons as they view it as revenge for feminism. "Lets you and him fight" as it goes. Then those suffering men troon out. What do?
 
UK children don't like trannies and this cunt thinks it's because of RADFEMs??

It's called Islam, bitch.
 
Maybe. But faghags are a response. The OG gay rights movement was dominated by gay men, whereas lesbians tended to be separate. It was lesbians, remember, who had to kick out the gay men involved in NAMBLA. It was quite the scandal at the time.

Either women are a reactionary species, or instigators of the fall of civilization. Having been around right wing circles, most 'trads' believe it the latter, while remaining ignorant on history.

If men are struggling, this does fit with the radfem suspicion that men do not help with troons as they view it as revenge for feminism. "Lets you and him fight" as it goes. Then those suffering men troon out. What do?
The vagina monologues, a seminal work in lesbian feminism, talked about how raping little girls was 'a good rape'. Lesbians pull all the same shit as fags, they just fuck a lot less.

Women aren't a species separate from men. This is the crux of why I reject feminism: it doesn't understand that men and women need eachother. (((They))) used feminism to pry men and women apart, destroying the family unit. The family unit that was the cornerstone of society. Why can't you see this?

All those short term gains came with long term consequences. Women in the workforce? Sounds great...except you suddenly doubled the labour force and thus permanently drove down wages. Not only that but you've pitted men and women against eachother, and via education and feminist ideology you've convinced several generations of women that being a wife and mother is oppressive.

This push for women in the workforce also came with a push to dismantle male spaces; places where men would go to be among friends and mentors. To learn how to be better men for their women and children. So now those don't exist. But female spaces sure do, don't they?

Men aren't struggling because of troons. Men have been struggling since before troons came about. Men are struggling because (((people))) used feminism as a blade to cut their legs out from under them. Masculinity is demonized and seen as a bad guy, even among reasonable people like you. The school system is stacked in women's favour and you see this in the current rates of graduation.

And at the end of it all; are women more happy? Are they more happy that they have to wage slave away for most their lives, even the ones who want kids? Because statistics sure as fuck says they aren't.
 
UK children don't like trannies and this cunt thinks it's because of RADFEMs??

It's called Islam, bitch.

That's the other reason why conservatives are foolish to think that this'll be a reversal of fortune.

The zoomers who oppose troonism the most might be mostly mudslimes, worst case scenario.
 
That's the other reason why conservatives are foolish to think that this'll be a reversal of fortune.

The zoomers who oppose troonism the most might be mostly mudslimes, worst case scenario.
The "conservatives" in the UK are already full of BAME, their most anti-tranny candidate in the last election was Nigerian. Though they don't particularly like Muslims since half of the British top conservatives are Jewish.
But it's hard to see labour elites dial down their faggotry.
 
UK children don't like trannies and this cunt thinks it's because of RADFEMs??

It's called Islam, bitch.

Possibly. The tables are at https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/p5uln04a/britons-and-gender-identity-data-tables.pdf, but they don't break it down by race or religion.

You have to be deep in the cult to think that it's a problem that 28% of young people are troonphobic, though. The headline story is surely that 62% believe something patently untrue, i.e. TWAW.

EDIT:

The "conservatives" in the UK are already full of BAME, their most anti-tranny candidate in the last election was Nigerian. Though they don't particularly like Muslims since half of the British top conservatives are Jewish.
But it's hard to see labour elites dial down their faggotry.

I'd much rather have based Kemi in charge than a white handmaiden like Penny Mordaunt.
 
MtFs are invading female spaces while mostly leaving men alone. FtMs are either crossdressing fujoshis or women who are trying to escape some trauma that they've tied into their femininity-- either way, they don't have interest in invading male spaces to the degree MtFs have for invading female spaces.

This all means it's largely a woman's issue and is fueled largely by female compliance/support. Especially in a society where there is all but enmity between the sexes and women are mostly shooing men away instead of asking for help on this, male involvement in repelling troonism is charity work.

Aside from the fact that women have invaded or abolished every single male space with the aid of simping men, FtMs do invade male spaces, but a tiny little woman with a pube beard isn't a threat. She can't even use the urinal, so I'm still safe from whining & nagging while I take a piss.

This whole troon thing underscores the simple fact that women are incapable of protecting themselves, something feminism won't let them admit, which causes this to keep spinning out of control. Troons in spaces that were supposed to be safe places for women to undress, use the toilet, etc, pose a risk by the simple fact that males are physically able to impose their will on females. Women aren't able to force the troons out, either. They need us to do it.
 
I won't doubt the cocksucking going on, but as was shown in the Mulvaney thread, it was men like Magnus Hirschfeld who spearheaded it. Even the radfems of the 60s like Gloria Steinem all go the TWAW route.

I hope you're right. A few years ago, the "just wait until they enter the real world" was tried on millennials. It didn't work. The Roe decision, and perhaps the 2020 Floyd riots, did bring out new scions of new voters. The midterms were hereditary seats being thrown around. The moralfag crusades, especially with no maternity care in the US, only puts them at a loss.

That's not even touching immigration. You'd be hard pressed to find any politician talking about it seriously anymore.
The 2020 riots had no impact on the 2022 midterms. Normies have the memory of goldfish. The SCOTUS decision on abortion and the GOP's behavior after the decision is what drove up voter turnout in certain areas. It was mostly in blue states, so it didn't matter much. The main things impacting the 2022 midterms was the sabotage by the GOP weak candidates and the psyop pulled by the media in the last few weeks before the midterms. The media started running polls showing the republicans were ahead and would have a "red wave". This caused GOP voters to stay home and watch the red wave happen on whatever platform they use. This also caused Democrats to turn out more than expected. Together with the abortion thing it was like kicking a hornets nest. Months before the midterms the media was spamming polls showing the Republicans would take the house and the senate was most likely going to narrowly stay in Democrat control. They just mysteriously switched this up just weeks before the midterms. People need to keep this in mind because they will pull this in 2024 with Trump. People have to go out and vote. You can't just sit home and watch the Trump victory on TV. You have to go out and make it happen.

Yes, I am right.
This is not some kind of iron law of human biology. Young people are shaped easily by propaganda. And since that propaganda ensures each generation is more liberal/left than the last, we always get this "old people are conservative, young people are liberal" dichotomy. So in 2022, today's old "conservatives" believe in racial equality, women's lib, and the welfare state, same as they did when they were young "liberals." It's just that today, being "liberal" means you believe in state censorship of misinformation and castrating boys to try and turn them into girls. If the schools were all run by foaming-at-the-mouth Catholic monarchists, we'd always be saying, "Eh, young people are always Catholic/monarchist-leaning than old people."
They can do whatever they want to young people, but they still don't vote. Much to the annoyance of the liberals. It doesn't matter what they do to them if they don't bother to vote.

The problem you are seeing is financial. The US population is mostly poor people. There aren't enough people in the US making $100,000 to keep the Republicans in power. It's like in the UK with the Labor party. Democrats are the US version of the labor party. Most people are economically liberal to an extent and socially conservative to an extent. But we don't have a political party like that. We have two extremes. The Republicans and Democrats. People usually vote based on their financial situation. When they get sick and tired of the Republicans and their country club BS they vote in the Democrats and when they get sick of their weirdo BS, they vote the Republicans back in power. It's gone back and forth like this for decades. In some people's minds the democrats are still seen as the defenders of the poor. Of course, Trump came along and changed that. In the first time in US history, you got a candidate that was that happy medium I was talking about. Was Trump perfect? No. But he was pretty damned close. He was so close he managed to bring the Republicans their first presidential victory in almost a decade. He managed to convince 25% of the Democrats voter base to vote form. 25% of Trumps 2016 and 2020 rallies were Democrats. Trump scared the shit out of them. They didn't think he would win in 2016 and when 2020 came around they did whatever they could to stop him. We all saw what they were willing to do.

Trump knew the correct stances to take on economic social and moral issues. His stances appeased everyone. For the first time in modern US history people didn't have to choose between starving under tax cuck country club Republicans or leftwing degeneracy.
 
The vagina monologues, a seminal work in lesbian feminism, talked about how raping little girls was 'a good rape'. Lesbians pull all the same shit as fags, they just fuck a lot less.

Women aren't a species separate from men. This is the crux of why I reject feminism: it doesn't understand that men and women need eachother. (((They))) used feminism to pry men and women apart, destroying the family unit. The family unit that was the cornerstone of society. Why can't you see this?

All those short term gains came with long term consequences. Women in the workforce? Sounds great...except you suddenly doubled the labour force and thus permanently drove down wages. Not only that but you've pitted men and women against eachother, and via education and feminist ideology you've convinced several generations of women that being a wife and mother is oppressive.

This push for women in the workforce also came with a push to dismantle male spaces; places where men would go to be among friends and mentors. To learn how to be better men for their women and children. So now those don't exist. But female spaces sure do, don't they?

Men aren't struggling because of troons. Men have been struggling since before troons came about. Men are struggling because (((people))) used feminism as a blade to cut their legs out from under them. Masculinity is demonized and seen as a bad guy, even among reasonable people like you. The school system is stacked in women's favour and you see this in the current rates of graduation.

And at the end of it all; are women more happy? Are they more happy that they have to wage slave away for most their lives, even the ones who want kids? Because statistics sure as fuck says they aren't.

/nods in furious agreement

I'm just fine with equality, but like BLM feminism long ago abandoned that and became a grift. Now it's all about equity+. Just hand us the good shit with none of the bad. The staggering entitlement of it all.
I could even not get MATI if the grifting wasn't accompanied by a malicious desire to unnecessarily fuck men over in the process just out of spite.
Let's not forget that the feminists much beloved Suffragettes only wanted the vote to apply to property owning women, their 'equality movement' very explicitly wanted to exclude working class women and especially men from voting rights. Feminism has always held a special hatred of working class men.
The constant demonizing of men has reached disturbing proportions and it has gone hand in hand with the rise of feminism. Its not just the Frankfurt School of commies that have wrecked men in educational institutions but also the feminization of the education system. As soon as primary and secondary eduction became largely run by women, boys behaviour became 'problematic' and needed to be feminised or medicated in a way it didn't when male teachers existed.
Can you even think the word 'masculinity' these days without appending the prefix 'toxic '?

As for troons, that also feels like a peculiarly female sort of neurotic revenge on men, which is now spectacularly backfiring.
Kinsey and Money didn't invent troons. You can almost guarantee that if there is a munchie parent trying to cut your sons cock off it's the mother.
Ever since Euripides put pen to paper and wrote a play about the ultimate 'woman scorned', men have known the score, Medea slaughtered her children in revenge against Jason for leaving her. I often see the same motivation in munchie women, a vengeance by proxy to end a man's line by emasculating their heirs.
Chandelier is correct in one respect, troons have to be fought against by men also, because they are predatory and they don't just want women's locker rooms, they want your kids too.
The radfems however can get fucked. It's hard not to notice that their main concern is 'muh female spaces', not cutting boys cocks off. Even Rowling is just fine with that, she just doesn't want the result hanging around her gym. These people are not your allies, those are the normal women also appalled by what has been done to their kids.

Feminism however has become a metastatsising cancer in society and unless men fight back against that also, it will take their balls. In some cases literally because they have so completely destroyed masculinity and elevated women that now weak men want to become women for the clout they wield and the immunity from criticism they enjoy.

Edited because: ..and another thing.
 
Last edited:
Trans-rights/activisim has minority support across every age demographic, there's nothing generational about transphobia.
 
The people who crafted troonism were not women. Hirschfeld wasn't a woman. Alfred Kinsey and John Money weren't women. So yeah, men started it, wrote the theory and crafted the drugs, and it's the male troons dominating the discourse.
It's women's spaces, populated by women, that are being swung right open for these men while they shout "TRANS WOMEN ARE REAL WOMEN!".
 
If you force this ideology, wherein autogynephiles and lunatics are made into an aristocratic privileged class, immune from accountability and living in sanctioned decadence, onto people by means of emotional abuse, you and those lunatics complicit in your scheme deserve far worse than this "backlash" of revoking the aristocracy's special privileges. (Threatening to kill yourself is textbook emotional abuse, and we need hardly mention the use of guilt in service of emotional manipulation characteristic of the "social justice" movement in the case of the autogynephiles.)
 
Back
Top Bottom