Alma-K @callme-alma2 - Tumblr Blog

wyvern-of-the-evening

Archive

bitterbadfem-harpy

@ihatemenandtherearereasons

ihatemenandtherearereasons

Exhibit 1522

beos121

This isn't about men unless you believe trans women are still men.

solanasdworkinlorde

Uh. Yes. That is the point. It is literally about a father and his lazy, entitlied, manipulative, pervert, abusive son who assaulted his sister.

beos121

The father was supportive during her transition, and he is the only male is this story. The point being that trans women are women.

I'm assuming that because she is trans that's why she is a pervert in your eyes.

wyvern-of-the-evening

The “oldest daughter” is a male. Male is a sex and according to your ideology sex ≠ gender. You can’t change chromosomes, which determine sex for literally everyone, yes everyone, on the planet. There’s also the 17 year old brother.

The point is that an adult male beat and choked his sister. Something he’s likely been looking for a reason to do from the sounds of it. He’s seemed malignant even before this. The fact you’re more concerned about people validating him rather than him hospitalizing a literal child is not surprising, but not any less telling and disgusting.

beos121

Gender and sex are not the same. No one has ever argued that you can change chromosomes.

You have again misinterpreted what I presented though in your blind terf hatred. I was in no way defending her but making a true statement that the only man involved in the story did the right thing ie support his daughter until to the best of his ability.

I also enjoy the dog whistle of comparing trans people to cancer. That we must be removed for the health of society.

Again she was clearly in the wrong. But I saw it on a blog about men being awful where it does not belong because in this instance there perpetrator is a woman.

wyvern-of-the-evening

You said he’s not a male. It’s literally right there where we can all read it. Also:

But of course you’re going to intentionally misconstrue things being said to paint people in a worse light.

You’re shifting the focus from him beating a child to demanding we call him something he’s not. You’re more concerned about his validation. I didn’t misinterpret that. Because the first thing you brought up was him being called a man. You’re only going back and saying he was wrong now because I pointed out you care more about validating him than the child’s safety.

beos121

I don't need to misconstrue things in order to make a terf look bad. I haven't said anything that is factually incorrect. I have only stated facts and proven basic reading comprehension.

wyvern-of-the-evening

No you do, because you lied about calling him a man, you intentionally misused which definition of malignant* I was using, and you did say something factually incorrect, being only one male was involved in the story when there are in fact 3, the father, and the oldest and middle children.

You showed that you’re more concerned with his validation, and your ability to manipulate the situation by, again, misusing which definition I meant.

*edit: Not only that but came up with a subliminal meaning and projected it onto me.

beos121

Lmao okay. You just said you're not trans exclusionary but reject their gender. You'll protect men as long as their afab which means that you still see them as women invalidating their identity. You can't have it both ways. I would be highly offended if someone said to me I see you as a man but I'll fight for your rights as a woman if I was transmasc.

wyvern-of-the-evening

Gender is literally just sets of sexist stereotypes. Gender is oppressive. Again, you claim to see sex and gender as separate. I said I include them in my feminism because they’re female, which is a sex. I personally don’t view them as men, you’re right. Because “man” is the shorter name for “adult human male”. The same way a stallion is an adult male horse, or Rooster is an adult male chicken. I would be fighting for their right as a female, since oppression is sex based. My views are plainly expressed in my bio and along my blog. No one would or should be surprised by them.

Either way congratulations on successfully derailing a post made about the abuse suffered by a 14yo child at the hands of her 22yo brother about whether or not I’m validating an abusers feelings. Honestly you could have just talked about how horrible this was for the girl to experience while using whatever pronouns you want. I wouldn’t give a shit, I’d think differently, someone would probably still tell you “it’s he”, but at least then the first issue that *you* brought up would have shown some consideration to the victim in this situation, instead of your first issue raised being consideration for the child abuser.

beos121

You are right that gender is a social construct, and yes a lot of discrimination is sex based. I face it all the time. It's wild how it only started after I transitioned mtf. Or one could say that because my physical body expressed the classical secondary sex characteristics of the female sex and I perform the proper gender roles in social situations I am a woman and as such am treated as one.

If you read what I posted again, my issue was with whom posted it as it is about hating men. You keep acting like I have done something wrong for pointing out that the woman WHO I SAID WAS IN THE WRONG is in fact a woman. This is just a fact. Your nazi terf denial of reality is not going to change the truth. Misgendering and deadnaming people is also considered abuse so I hope that no transgender person ever has to talk to you for an extended amount of time like I have. Before you take this out of context, no it is not equivalent to her beating her sister. She was in the wrong, and I will not defend anyone abusing a child. Especially if it involves denying them lifesaving care.

wyvern-of-the-evening

Ah yes. Now it makes sense why the focus has to be on the validating male feelings over the literal hospitalizing abuse suffered by a child.

The people who discriminate against TIMs isn’t because TIMs are viewed as women. From radfems we see you as males who infringe on our rights, because you expect women to put your feelings before our safety. From conservatives, it’s because they view you as males who aren’t performing maleness they way they think you “should be”.

“I perform the proper gender roles in social situations I am a woman and such I am treated as one”

Conforming to a set of sexist stereotypes and admitting you think that’s what validates your false sense of womanhood isn’t the argument you think it is. You also aren’t treated as a woman by the people who dislike you, unless you mean when you only tell people who can’t see you online that you’re a woman while omitting being trans. You’re treatment is more akin to gay men who “act too feminine”. Again it’s because they see you as a man who “isn’t acting like a man” (as if there is a way to “act like” a woman or a man. There isn’t)z

The “Ihatemenandtherearereasons” account is radfem owned. Which you should know based on past posting history. The account who reblogged it is irrelevant frankly to the original post itself. You felt the need to make this about you. My problem with you stems from the fact that you care more about validating his feelings and therefore brought that up as your primary issue. You only mentioned him being in the wrong as an afterthought. You’re calling a half black same sex attracted woman a “nazi” because I correctly sexed a man. I base my views on the material reality of sex, not the metaphysical ideas of gender. In doing so you’re watering down the harm the nazis have done, and heavily relying on the tu quoque fallacy.

You’re now relying on DARVO by making the 14yo child out to be abusive with that statement. That’s not out of context either. You’re just trying to claim it as a lesser form of an abuser, as a means of taking a jab at me and other radical feminists. I don’t expect the world to tiptoe around my triggers, so why you expect everyone to deny the material reality before our eyes and tiptoe around yours is beyond me.

Edit: General use of the words “you” “yours” and “yourself”.

witchbirds-deactivated20231216

Alright, you are about as genuine as a cuckoo chick in a robin’s nest. Hell, the only reason you seem like you can call out the other user so pointedly is that you, yourself are guilty of the same patterns.

For the original post, yeah, the gender of the assailant is irrelevant. So is the sex. You cannot convince me a 22-year-old cisgender woman couldn’t have just as easily beaten the tar out of a 14-year-old girl. You make a passing reference to this fact, but then dive right back in on your personal agenda.

As to your misgendering, you could have done two things that would have been infinitely more helpful in restoring the topic to its original point: first, just… used the correct pronoun. One extra keystroke to nullify any drama. But no, even that was too much for you. And wouldn’t have fit your agenda. Second, you could have just ignored the other user and responded to the original post with something on topic. But, again, that would have involved passing on your sanctimonious agenda.

As to the story itself, a 22-year-old anyone doesn’t have emotional regulation that bad in a vacuum. Odds are the author was a shitty parent. I’m not going to take their side of the story at face value; doesn’t excuse the assault, but does indicate that the solution probably isn’t to demonize or just punish the assailant. This situation absolutely calls for mental health intervention. On more than one front.

wyvern-of-the-evening

Statistically speaking, sex is absolutely relevant in cases of violent crime as males have a higher propensity to commit violence. And transitioning doesn’t change sex based crime patterns. Gender identity doesn’t matter. Again sex does. I also never said women are incapable of abuse so wherever you pulled that from you can put it back.

“Misgendering” doesn’t affect the story at all. I don’t have to appease male feelings to get a point across. Again you can’t expect people to tiptoe around your triggers. As already stated, I base my views in the material reality of sex, not the metaphysical belief in gender. “You could have just ignored that user” you mean the same way he could have ignored my post entirely? I’m the person who made the initial post. I’m more than justified in responding to reblogs of something I posted. He wanted to make the whole situation about validation because when he saw someone else being “misgendered” he in turn felt invalidated.

In all honesty if it was my 22 year old I don’t think I’d be able to keep myself from violence. How dare you attack a child, your fucking sister. They should have started him in Therapy from age 18 to try and curb this toxic bullshit behavior. I feel for the parents but also feel like they’re complicit to a degree in not getting him help. There are also multiple ways to be a shitty parent. In this particular instance it seems like they just gave him whatever he wanted. Regardless of parenting, when you’re a 22 year old adult you know the difference between right and wrong, and you know better than to put your hands on a child.

witchbirds-deactivated20231216

This the most laughable counterargument possible.

First paragraph is irrelevant. Those statistics literally don’t matter for this discussion. Nor does it justify the misgendering. None of that addresses my counter-example invalidating your nonsensical perseverance on that point. Utterly pathetic, try again.

Second paragraph is back-pedaling bullshit. Of course you have the choice to respond. But trying to turn around and be like “yOu dErAiLeD tHe ToPiC” when you made the choice to follow that tangent is being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith. Ffs, maybe you should have considered that, maybe, perhaps, trans users would only feel comfortable joining the discussion after they’d been reassured this wasn’t meant to be a transphobic echo chamber? A reasonable concern given the content of the original post? And then you just went and failed that test. Over and over again, because you just HAD to double down and play word games to pretend you weren’t being a bigot. Again, pathetic.

Plus, I think you mean to say “No one’s ever respected my triggers, so I’m not going to respect anyone else’s. I will use people being a dick to me as an excuse to be a dick to everyone, especially random strangers on the Internet.” You’re a bully looking for targets. Again again, pathetic.

And oh god that third paragraph. Ignorant fucking shit. The parents fucked up long before their oldest turned 18. The whole wording of dad’s story bleeds with contempt and resentment, and it’s abundantly clear they felt that way long before shit went down. And if you think the problem was “spoiling” the assailant, then you are way to undereducated to be touching this story and topic. At all. That is putting a massive degree of blind faith in a cultural narrative when there’s clearly a lot more nuance to what’s going on in this family. As I said, explosive emotional regulation failure doesn’t develop as a pattern in a vacuum; this person had needs a long time ago that their parents ignored and neglected. And now that the consequences of the neglect are here, dear-old-dad wants the one who got the 2nd rawest deal (1st goes to the daughter who almost died, which would still be a consequence of the parental neglect) to be his scapegoat. Disgraceful and pathetic. The two things you are an expert on.

And I’m sorry, the whole “right from wrong” statement? Again, tone-deaf ignorance. Turns out psychology and neurology are a lot more complicated than that. Especially if anything during our developmental periods goes traumatically wrong. Things get even more complicated with sibling relationships, because kids have a tendency to redirect emotionally energy from their parents (who they typically aren’t powerful enough to challenge) towards their siblings (who are less unassailable). Let me re-iterate, the dad’s obviously white-washed account cannot be taken for granted as to how this incident developed, and I frankly don’t believe that he or the rest of the family tried nearly as hard to be understanding when the entire narrative radiates his prejudice.

Sure, fine, doesn’t justify the assault and legal responsibility goes to the assailant. But, realistically speaking, parental failure was the key factor in all of this. And it was much more severe than something asinine like “they gave her everything she wanted”.

Let me just hammer this point home: You have almost no appreciation for nuance or complexity, with your only attempt at it being to justify yourself for persistent misgendering when that was clearly interfering with good faith. You are quite possibly the worst person that could be hosting any kind of discussion on these topics.

And go ahead, call me a hypocrite for talking about good faith when I’ve been belittling you and making personal attacks this whole time. But the fact is there’s no sense bringing kid gloves and dignity to a fight against an opponent relying on sucker punches and cheap shots.

wyvern-of-the-evening

What do male violence statistics have to do with misgendering? I never said they were meant to “justify” my correctly sexing someone. I’ll reiterate for the 3rd time since you didn’t seem to get it the first 2 times, I operate based on sex. Not gender. Gender is a set of metaphysical beliefs, not material reality. Those statistics are in fact relevant to this entire discussion because the story is one about male violence. The other user wanted to make it about gender validation instead of abuse and male violence. My original tags on the post included male violence. So yes actually it’s entirely relevant. I also wasn’t trying to “disprove your counter example”. I quite literally said “I also never said women were incapable of abuse so wherever you pulled that from you can put it back”.

The point of those statistics was that just because a woman is capable of doing it doesn’t make it more statistically probable. You know who else likes to turn conversations about male violence into how women are “just as capable?” MRAs. Why is it we aren’t able to have a discussion about male violence without the “BUT WOMEN TOO”? Yes, he did in fact derail the topic. It’s about child abuse and male violence. He wanted to make it about gender validation. Something irrelevant here. I’m not wrong in pointing that out, when again, one of the tags in the original post lists male violence. My bringing it up is still relevant to my post. And yeah, I have a choice to respond. So did he. He could have ignored and kept scrolling on his dash. He chose to interact with my post. You just would rather I have ignored it because you don’t like what I have to say.

My content isn’t aimed at males. My blog isn’t here for male comfort. Women are already asked to put their comfort before our own, and our safety. “Perhaps they’d feel comfortable joining after being reassured that-“ no. Conversations aren’t always going to be comfortable. Clearly this conversation isn’t. You and I are butting heads, and yet still engaging in this conversation. Conversations I have with white males on racism and prejudice in the justice system aren’t comfortable conversations to have. This very conversation is inherently an uncomfortable one because it pertains to child abuse. If you aren’t prepared to have uncomfortable conversations, then don’t get involved with uncomfortable topics. He went out of his way to follow a radfem account and was upset when they held a radfem view. That’s not on anyone but him.

I never said “no one respected my triggers” nor did I say I was going to go out of my way to disrespect someone else’s. You want me to validate a male’s feelings and make him feel comfortable by denying the objective reality before my eyes. I wouldn’t demand people start calling me Asian when I’m not, they can see I’m not. I don’t expect people to call me a 57 year old when they can clearly see I’m not. If we had to tiptoe around everyone’s sensibilities nothing would get done. Because now we have to make sure there’s no demonic iconography for the christians, now we need to make sure there’s no horror movie posters because a child might see it and get scared. What I’m saying, is I’m not going to feed into a set of stereotypes and validate that as being a woman. We’re on the internet, and the block button is a simple thing to use. One he in fact used after admitting he views womanhood as “being hot”. Why the fuck would I validate that?

“Bleeds with contempt and resentment” Gee I wonder why after his oldest hospitalized his youngest child he would be pissed the fuck off about that. How about the fact that he allowed this shit behavior to go on in his house unchecked until that point? How about the fact he allowed this man to be an entitled lazy sack of shit? Validated his son even after his daughter was physically assaulted by this adult male? Didn’t immediately call the police? The bad parenting here, is a lack of consequences for his son’s shitty actions. You’re right. He did need help before he was 18. Because he was entitled as all hell. News flash, being spoiled and receiving no consequence? Yeah that’s still considered neglect.

Where does the "world-owes-me" syndrome come from?

Learn about the signs to expect in a spoiled child and the long-term effects of spoiling your child.

Do you spoil your children? For all ages and a myriad of behavior problems, WebMD helps parents regain control.

“When spoiled youngsters become teenagers, they’re more prone to excessive self-absorption, lack of self-control, anxiety, and depression, says Dan Kindlon, PhD, author of Too Much of a Good Thing: Raising Children of Character in an Indulgent Age.”

Whether it's an attempt to buy love or happiness, help your child fit in, fight his...

So maybe if you want to call someone “undereducated,” look into the negative affects caused by overindulging a child. Something we can glean from the father’s story in that when he told his son to get a job, and he threw a fit about it.

Saying that he, as a 22 year old adult, knows the difference between right and wrong, isn’t tone deaf. Because if he didn’t learn it from his parents, he learned it from his teachers. We never get any insight to disciplinary action from school, but the guidelines of “do not hit others, treat people the way you want to he treated” is a concept taught in schools. At age 22, he has friends, he should know better. He didn’t go through his whole life never hearing this concept. Even literal psychopathic killers know what they’re doing is wrong, they just don’t care. You’re also assigning attributes to the family based on your dislike of the situation. Had this been a “cis” (in your gendered language) man, you would have no issue with the story being told or what you perceive as resentment from the father. But because this is about a TIM, you’re quick to pounce on anyone else being at fault.

I absolutely agree with you that bad parenting is a key factor in this. You are 100% right. My problem is that, whether you’re trying to or not (and I genuinely don’t think you’re trying to), your use of bad parenting is comparable to the “well he was bullied” excuse people give school shooters. Whether it played a factor in it or not, that’s not something to be used as a cushioning.

Let me hammer this home. His gender validation is not important to this conversation. You, and the other user made it about that. This isn’t a conversation about misgendering and he turned it into that by arguing about the account reblogging this post. You, as far as I’ve read maybe I missed something, haven’t resorted to ad hominem (I don’t count you calling me uneducated as such because, despite it being wrong, you had a reason to believe I am). You haven’t, to my knowledge, done anything for me to call you a hypocrite over. Me disagreeing heavily with you doesn’t mean I’m going to call you something I don’t think you are. That would be hypocritical of me if anything. Despite your sometimes mocking tone and referring to my arguments as “stupid” or “pathetic” (something I do myself at times so it’s to be expected in these kinds of conversations/debates), you have remained respectable in that regard. My correctly sexing people, referring to people by their sex, isn’t an insult, “sucker punch” or “cheap shot”. I, again, operate based on objective reality, not the belief of a gendered soul, and not in the debunked belief of brain sex.

witchbirds-deactivated20231216

Oh my fuck, you’re entire argument rests on the belief that you’re god and know what objective reality is.

I cannot

believe

I just read someone unironically claim that in a debate about psychology.

Especially when that’s clearly a facade. You want this conversation to be about male-on-female violence. Great topic. Here’s the thing though: that’s always been referred to as GENDER violence for a reason. It is ridiculous to say the biological sex is all that matters when you want to have a discussion about GENDER violence. Again, you are playing word games, and that points to you being disingenuous.

And, OH MY FUCK, you take a statement about conversational safety and make it about “comfortability.”

What

We are talking about a minority group that deals with a lot of prejudice and targeted violence. Approaching a conversation where the one hosting it keeps using shibboleths that indicate they are aligned with the persecutors. Conversational safety is not the same as conversational comfort. Do some bloody goddamn research.

Hell, nevermind invoking objectivity in a debate where abuse is invoked. And a conversation could be had about whether a single (to our knowledge) case of assault qualifies as abuse. Because abuse is not a material concept. In fact, plenty of research supports the idea that the perception of abuse is culturally constructed, there’s not a universal standard for it. That’s one of the things that makes it a complex topic.

The whole belief that violence is bad and should not have been resorted to in this circumstance is not a material concept. Violence is the way of nature; if you want to talk about “material reality,” there’s nothing more “material” than a stress response system designed for executing violence as a means of accomplishing something and a real limit to how much a brain can inhibit before the dam breaks. And, what is more, the perception of whether using violence as a means of achieving something is acceptable is culturally constructed.

It is patently ridiculous to talk about material reductionism on one hand and then make a flurry of value judgments with the other. Especially when the “material reality” is that there are exceptions to your bullshit. Exceptions that challenge the point you are trying to peddle.

Shoot, material reality is all I believe in. Souls are not a thing. What I have an understanding of is that gender and gender perceptions, what gender means, are socially constructed. And that individual humans are part of and expressions of a larger social system. Our place in that system has a very real impact on our behavior. That incidents of dysfunction and violence can be traced back to that system. That is a cause-and-effect chain. That is material.

You are not objective. You are a reductionist, yes. But not objective. You almost broke through there: you started talking about systems and acknowledged that, for this kid to have ended up like this, then there is a larger system (parents, friends, school) that had to have let them down. But then you doubled back to saying this transwoman must be “evil” or “pathologically entitled” or some shit because that is the message you are trying to peddle. That is all you care about.

Case in point: you have shown zero consideration for how psychologically taxing it can be to be trans and stuck in a hostile environment. I already mentioned that there’s clear signs this has been a bad family system, there’s a reason they waited until they were a legal adult to come out about it. You also show no consideration for whether there is another psychological variable that could have impacted their functioning: do they have an anxiety disorder, are they on the autism spectrum, have these problems gone undiagnosed? Again, there’s hints in the text that suggest these may be issues involved in the situation.

Now, do I know that these issues are in play? Fuck no, all I’ve got is the dad’s whitewashed story. Which I’m not ever sure is real, could easily be that redditor’s creative writing exercise to stir up controversy and galvanize other transphobes. It’s nevertheless a believable narrative and that’s why I’m staying engaged with it.

And like, could you do a proper round of research and go find solid scholarly sources instead of that tripe? I am not going to take the pop media version of research as convincing. And while you’re at it, include looks into microaggressions, effects of long-term stress and relationship to trauma, Bowen family theory, family scapegoats, and basically just dip your toe into the whole body of research that demonstrates the fallaciousness of your reductionism.

You get points for not throwing Jordan Peterson at me, at least.

I also just want everyone to note the bigoted talking points. They are using the exact same logic that white supremacists level against black people. This is literally the way. That white supremacists. Talk about black people. I live in the southern U.S., I argue with white supremacists a lot. This is the same kind of logic that takes the statistic of “blacks make up half of the U.S. prison population” and claims it proves there’s something inherently wrong with black people, instead of recognizing it indicates a problem with, um, idk, the awful justice system, systemic racism, unequal access to opportunity, insufficient welfare systems, a dysfunctional education system, police corruption, and the entitled rich, white interests that keep all those systems in their broken state.

To be clear, I’m not saying our gracious host is a white supremacist. I have no idea on that front. What I am saying is they are a bigot. Who coincidentally loses their reading comprehension when they’re called out on projecting as a way of justifying their disrespectful bullshit.

Edit: Also can’t stress enough how fake and pretentious their material monism is. I’m a material monist, and I think their full of shit for thinking that justifies blatant transphobia.

EDIT EDIT: On another note, again, neither the sex or gender of the assailant needs to be made center stage to have a conversation about violence against women in this context. Because that is absolutely what happened: out of everyone in the household they could have finally gotten violent toward, that they went for the weakest family member is significant. The family member who was least responsible for whatever suffering they’ve experience (again, that falls squarely on parent’s shoulders), but the easiest to overpower. That IS worth talking about, that the victim was the youngest girl of the household matters, but still no justification for brazen transphobia. Process over content, motherfuckers.

wyvern-of-the-evening

This isn’t an entirely psychological discussion. It was never strictly that. No one has to be God to know what sex someone is. This isn’t a rare case of some medical condition. He’s certainly not a female if he’s a TW. And according to your group AFABs can’t be TW. So that only leaves male.

It also hasn’t “always been referred to as gender violence” as gender wasn’t really coined and used until John Money in 1955. On top of that, it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that they were talking about males with dysphoria. That wasn’t widely accepted as a concept until more recent years and they didn’t start recording them as the wrong sex until recent years. Even when they say the term “gender” they put “female or male” as options. People still use it interchangeably. On top of that recording it by gender is harmful because as I already linked above, they retain the same criminal patterns (as in the commit the same types of crimes) as their birth sex. Which means they would also have to be referring to statistics on violence, based on sex. It also doesn’t help that the movement you’re supporting demands separation on the concepts of sex and gender, and you acknowledging this as male on female, which are sexes.

“Turned it into something about comfort” you literally referred to comfort. Not conversational safety which they have. You said: “Ffs, maybe you should have considered that, maybe, perhaps, trans users would only feel comfortable joining the discussion…” so maybe instead of telling me to do research you should be careful about the way you word things. They also aren’t afraid of me. They’re mostly males, and males aren’t marginalized for being male. They’re getting the laws they want, they’re getting to use women’s spaces and resources despite our objections, they’re getting documents at workplaces changed to suit their language, people in high up political positions are kissing their asses. No other movement has gotten that far, that fast. And it has to do with them being male. I’m half black, I experience SSA, I’m a woman. I know what being marginalized is like thanks.

I’m sorry are you trying to compare abuse to gender? I know you probably think this is some gotcha moment because “well this concept is societally made up so is gender so that means you have to believe in all concepts or none”. I have continuously referred to the “material reality of sex” specifically to the point where me saying “material reality” contextually means the same thing. You know I’m speaking about that when I say only “material reality” based on context. I believe in things that aren’t there before my eyes. This isn’t one of them.

You know what else is a social construct? Cultural construct? Religion. And yet you (probably) don’t expect everyone to believe in religion. Ghosts and spirits are a cultural and social constructs, and yet you don’t expect people to believe in that. Souls, same thing is applicable. And yet, maybe not you since you don’t believe in them, but a good portion of the gender movement believes in a gendered soul. Why would they expect someone to believe them if they didn’t believe in souls. You don’t believe in souls but it’s also a cultural/societal construct just as much as gender. Maybe then they could fall back on “brain sex” but as stated that’s been debunked and not only that, is sexist as the very basis of denying women a lot of their rights was based on them believing our brains were sexed. Even if it were they would still be in a male body (when talking about TIMs). Their chromosomes, skeletal structure, muscle mass, natural hormone levels. And don’t think about using people with DSD as a pawn. They already get enough from that medical condition without you claiming them to benefit your movement. You also claim that “material reality is all you believe in” before mentioning your lack of belief in souls, however acknowledge gender as a social construct, and that you believe in it. That’s contradictory. So no, material reality isn’t all you believe in.

Here’s the problem with gender. It’s oppressive stereotypes. Gender is femininity and masculinity. Femininity is pushed upon women, masculinity upon males. It’s constrictive. Women have fought for decades to be allowed to break out of that bubble and now when they’re GNC they’re not only assumed to be TIFs but it’e pushed upon them. Butches and tomboys cannot exist peacefully without having this ideology thrust upon them. I’m not a “reductionist”. Gender ideologues are since they will see “x form of dress and x behavior means you’re in the wrong body.” What’s reductionist is saying the complexities of womanhood can be understood and achieved with hormones, surgery, and conforming to a list of behaviors. I also never said TIMs were “evil” and “pathologically entitled” (though a study show that 81.4% of people with GD have a comorbidity with personality disorders. Of 81%, 57.1% of them had narcissistic personality disorder so now you can make the second claim)

I said children, like this now adult man, are entitled because of over indulgent parents. You’re now trying to push that I made that argument to cover up for the fact you assumed spoiling a child and overindulging them was a form of neglect or abuse. You’re trying to portray it as though you knew all along while trying to originally correct me on that and call me undereducated because of it.

“You also show no consideration for whether there is another psychological variable that could have impacted their functioning: do they have an anxiety disorder, are they on the autism spectrum, have these problems gone undiagnosed? Again, there’s hints in the text that suggest these may be issues involved in the situation.”

It doesn’t matter if they had anxiety, or other undiagnosed problems that we can only speculate about because you want to provide him as much cushioning as possible. Disorders, illnesses, are not something you can use to excuse shitty behavior. Him throwing a fit about having to get a job isn’t indicative of undiagnosed problems, it’s indicative of entitlement. I have PTSD and suffer from occasional mood swings. Neither if those things would give me an excuse for treating the people around me poorly. At this point you’re pulling out anything you think might soften the blow for the TIM here. What next? “well he was 22 so maybe he was drunk and didn’t know what he was doing”

We can speculate all day about the inner workings of whatever was going on. That doesn’t change that he is aware enough to know he wants to drop out, aware enough to know how to throw a fit about having to get a job. And what you’re doing is in fact on some level trying to lessen the extent of what he did by doing all this. Did his parents fuck up in raising him? Yes. But they didn’t choke a 14 year old. He did. Could he have an undiagnosed mental health issue? Statistically speaking yes. But since when was that an excuse for abusive behavior, especially to that extent?

Also, those articles, if you bothered to read them, include comments from psychologists, if you’re referring to the ones on over indulgence. Let me ask you this, how is it a scapegoat to admit you created a brat? How does that somehow make the parent look good in anyones eyes?

But since those articles aren’t good enough for the almighty big brain tumblr user, here you go.

Several highly visible cases labeled "affluenza" by the press have recently generated countless hours of airtime on radio and TV and in the

“Overindulgence describes a pattern of behaviors among authority figures that frequently results in behaviors characterized by dependence, irresponsibility, and disrespect/defiance (and occasionally all three) among those who are being reared or mentored.” Huh, that sounds a lot like throwing a fit about needing to get a job, and then blaming everyone but yourself after being kicked out for an assault. If anything this conversation has highlighted the fact that you’re willing to pull just about any speculation out of the blue in an attempt to block criticism of a group who, lets be real, would let you sink.

See all articles from this issue

“Overindulgence is a form of child neglect. It hinders children from performing their needed developmental tasks, and from learning necessary life lessons.”

This paper researches on the impacts of overindulgent parenting on children and concludes by stating that parents should consider adopting t

“ it has far-reaching consequences on the development of the child. It leads to the development of entitled children who lack empathy for others.” (Citation is under the papers)

A 2017 AJN Book of the Year Award winner, Essentials of Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing: A Communication Approach to Evidence Based Care,

Page 343 “Overindulgence can be considered a type of neglect that can result in social and emotional impairment, lack of empathy…”

I don’t have to look up scapegoating because it’s what you’ve been doing here for the abuser in this situation. “It’s his parents fault, it’s the school’s fault, it’s the fault of mental illness”. You’re willing to pin the blame on everything except for him. As stated before, his parents didn’t choke and beat his sister, his school didn’t do it, his mental illness didn’t do it. He did. “Micro aggression” you mean like how he let this piece of shit stay in his house up until this point despite the admitted tension? The fact he, again, didn’t even call the police on his son? Didn’t badger him to get a job during the pandemic? Still tried to respect his son’s “identity?”Regardless of ANY external circumstances, HE WAS THE ONE who put his hands on that girl. No form of micro aggression, no amount of mental illness, no amount of past abuse will ever, EVER excuse abusing another person.

And now for my “favorite” part of conversations with gender ideologues.

I am literally half black. A woman of color.

I’ve actually experienced racism. I have had people call me subhuman. I’ve had people spout bullshit about black people at me. I also gotta love how when we bring up race in relation to gender ideology, it’s wrong. But gender ideologues get to draw any comparison they want to benefit their argument. Here’s a tip. If you have to compare your oppression to that of another group, if you can’t articulate how you are treated without bringing another oppressed demographic into it, you aren’t as oppressed as you think you are.

I can articulate my oppression as a woman of color. I’m seen as subhuman by white people on the basis of my skin color. They view themselves as “pure” and think that dark skin inherently means evil. This is irrationally based. I’m seen as subhuman on the basis of my sex. Males view women as incubators and home appliances meant to clean and cook for them as well as take care of them in all other aspects. They still hardly conduct medical research on women and the affects certain medication might have on us, the criteria for diagnosing autism for example is still heavily reliant on how symptoms appear in males, hence why it takes longer to diagnose in females. For a long time and even to this day women are overmedicated because prescription dosages are measured out in how they affect males. To name just 2 examples.

And I can tell you what TIMs *do* experience. Violence at the hands of males. Homelessness. Lack of legitimate, non-cosmetic health care. However as I stated in my response to the other user, that’s because their treatment is more akin to that of gay men. The people who hate them don’t hate them because they view them as women. They see them as males, which they are. But they view them as males who aren’t performing masculinity, and that in their eyes is wrong. They deserve actual human rights afforded to everyone. Cosmetic surgery is not a human right. Hormones that aren’t medically required for actual hormonal imbalance, isn’t a human right. Pronouns aren’t a human right.

So to make a long answer short. I’m an ethnic woman. No I’m not a white supremacist. I’ve stated multiple times I’m a woman of color. It’s in my bio. Your “idk if our host is one” is tu quoque. You’re hoping they’ll have either forgotten I’m a woman of color, or hoping they won’t look into it. It’s an attempt to discredit my arguments by coming for my character.

The idea that males are violent is statistically backed. Black people are not more violent, that is the claim made by white supremacists. Black people DO make up a larger part of the prison system but that is a result of institutionalized racism, and poverty. Poverty breeds crime and the affects of red lining that still linger to this day contribute to it. Because on top of racism classism is a systemic problem. Those are factual.

The white supremacist idea that black people are more criminally inclined is based in nothing and serves to benefit black people.

I think you would agree that in every country, males hold systemic power. In what way would it benefit them to admit they’re responsible for a higher number crimes?

Arrests by offense, age, and gender

Global study on homicide

Table 42

And as previously established, I linked it earlier (and right above) , TW retain male criminal patterns. TM retain female criminal patterns. For TW that includes violent crime proclivity. It’s not because they’re trans. Because TIFs are less likely to commit violent crime. It’s because the males are males. That’s not some ill conceived notion that I’m just saying, that’s a studied and observable fact. You’re comparing this studied phenomenon, to debunked racism.

In fact it’s to the benefit of men to change male perpetrators as women so they can skew sex based crime statistics to lend credit to the (statistically false) notion that women are just as violent as men.

Your edits are just repeating points you made earlier that I already addressed so I see no need to address them again.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Alma-K