Trans-inclusive radical misogyny.
Wait no, it’s cis-exclusive radical feminism
the heat death of bigotry
So you’re saying dude has TIRM-inal brain rot?
My brain just fell apart reading that sentence
Ah yes, the classic Iranian system.
deleted by creator
Sometimes I need to see the twitter feeds of people like this, as a reminder of exactly what women mean when they talk about men being scum.
Sometimes it hurts to be generalized into a category I don’t feel I belong to and it’s tempting to push back, but knowing that people are out there spending what appears to be all of their free time being horrible online and harassing women is a good reminder that women are pretty justified in having a low opinion of men in general.
Now I can go back to pretending twitter doesn’t exist for a while again.
The easiest way to see if it’s OK is to swap out “men” with any other protected characteristic. If, having done that it suddenly becomes problematic, it was always so and they should’ve known better.
I think youre right not to engage them though. For all their talk of equality, anyone who talks like that just wants to be at the top of a new hierarchy. Remove or subjugate the men and most women (who haven’t decolonisated their minds) will just replicate the same power structures, adopting the position of patriarch without a hint of self awareness. The way forward is to help other men see the pain caused to them by the patriarchy, as its only then that we can see the pain we cause through the patriarchy, due to the rituals of disregard and empathy killing we go through as boys.
I’ll finish by saying the same thing I said to my dad, shortly after he lost his job" "yes dad, of course I’ve heard of the phrase ‘sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.’ However, you can’t always do that, especially when you’re meant to be firefighter, you doughnut.
You should reference my other comment in this thread. You’re correct that statements like “all men are trash” are unjustly prejudiced, but you’re making a false equivalence.
My point is that is that both are wrong, not that they are or are not both equally wrong. So, would you mind explaining where the equivalence is please?
I mean, I know its more of a case that some people don’t like that both of those things are wrong to do but I’m gonna need a little more than that and a misunderstanding of an informal fallacy, sorry.
In your comment, whether intended or not. It’s not a long comment. By “whatabouting” the idea of replacing men with any marginalized group, you are making a false equivalence via equivocation. By leaving out the crucial aspect of power imbalance, you minimize its role by implication. See: all lives matter in response to BLM.
deleted by creator
You should read my longest comment within this larger thread. Truly read the whole thing, and its child comments, before forming your opinion. I clearly and explicitly state
I am not suggesting that it’s okay to make men feel responsible for the actions of people that share only a gender with them, nothing else.
and that doing so is unjust. Nuance isn’t the same thing as taking an opposing stance. I even go into the fact that women making such blanket statements likely do not hate all men. If you feel the same way after reading my full comment and understanding it, I’m happy to have a discussion about it, but by the context of your comment, I don’t believe you understand my stance, and therefore I don’t want to engage with it further.
Again, you don’t understand what a false equivalence fallacy is. So, you should really stop attempting to use it because doing so is make you look like a fool.
Whatabouting and false equivalences aren’t the same thing. I feel like I’m witnessing the death of irony here.
No, something wrong is still wrong, even if you feel bad about historical injustices. The power imbalance does not change this and also ignores every other intersection a white person could have.
You even drew a false equivalence the BLM which is the only actual false equivalence on this chain.
See the wiki pages of the fallacies you clearly don’t understand.
God damn bougouise feminists.
God forbid a rhetorical argument fall into multiple categories. I never said whataboutism and false equivalences are the same thing. You happened to do both. Equivocation has nothing to do with setting two things as equal, it’s the use of ambiguous language to avoid the bigger picture of an issue or to avoid committing to a stance. It is another form of logical fallacy. Via equivocation (omission and vague language) you omitted key facts (social power imbalance) that makes bringing up a connected, but not equivalent, issue (replacing men are trash with any other group, which is a form of whataboutism) a false equivalence.
You can say I don’t know what I’m talking about. That doesn’t make it true. Your equivocation of your whataboutism argument led to forming a false equivalence.
All lives matter in response to BLM is both whataboutism and a false equivalence. Just because someone didn’t say “what about” or "these things are equal doesn’t make those facts untrue. There is an implied “what about all those other lives, don’t they matter?” which in itself implies that the societal inequalities BLM rose in response to are equal to the pressures felt but the rest of “all lives.”
God damn bougouise feminists.
Lol
It’s always amusing to me to watch someone like the person you’re responding to try to browbeat an argument into submission by referencing pedantic technicalities and yet be so fundamentally wrong about what those technicalities actually mean.
Although on the topic of being pedantic, I kinda miss when whataboutism was called tu quoque. Really made the logical fallacy guys at least sound eloquent.
Its not whataboutism. Its trying to help you see something youre clearly missing. Its applying the same logic somewhere else, to see if it still works. Its literally how you explain fallacies.
Its not an all lives matter response either. Instead its you attempting to reject intersectionality, in the name of feminism, without a hint of irony or self awareness. Luckily for you, no one else seems to have read theory post the 1980s either.
“Men are trash” being acceptable for all women implies that every man ever has always suffered less power imbalances than every woman ever. For example, it would mean that black male slaves in the 1800s would have to of suffered less at the hand of power imbalances than Queens of the United Kingdom, for your “power imbalance makes sexism ok” argument to hold any weight. Its just a safespace for sexism, provided it’s only directed one way.
Lol no, intersectionality isn’t a false equivalence, as you’re attempting to paint. It’s the rejection of upper class white women, for whom all the men in their lives were all powerful, declaring that all men are always in a higher position of power than all women because that’s the only thing they ever saw (bougouise feminism).
Turns out, for all their talk of equality, people like yourself just want to be at the top of a new hierarchy, exacting revenge.
You literally tried to refute intersectionality with “thats like saying all lives matter.”
The easiest way to see if it’s OK is to swap out “men” with any other protected characteristic. If, having done that it suddenly becomes problematic, it was always so and they should’ve known better.
No. You are making an equivalence argument that misses the reality of power dynamics and the context of like centuries of documented social oppression.
Edit: Fuck I didn’t see erin beat me to it.
No, it’s not an equivalence argument. I didn’t say they were equally wrong or the same thing. Also, nether power dynamics nor oppression make those things right.
You’re telling me that you see no problem with black people saying the same about all white people then?
Yes, I see no problem with black people saying the same about white people; because white people have a manufactured generational power gap supporting them which is designed around keeping black people poor, underrepresented, and under served in their communities.
Much the same way as how men have manufactured a generational power gap supporting them which is designed around keeping women underrepresented.
Just because it sucks for me personally doesn’t mean it’s an invalid sentiment.
But I didn’t manufacture that and neither did you. It also, intentionally, ignores every single other intersection a white person could have.
Don’t worry, the sentiment invalidates itself. That kind of backwards bougouise feminism died in the 80s and should’ve stayed that way.
If you’re a white male, and I think I can safely assume that you are from your comments in this thread, you are the direct beneficiary of a system that has propped you up over literally everyone else. Understanding that system, and your role in it, is critical to trying to finally tear it down to make room for a fair and equitable one.
I didn’t manufacture the system, but I acknowledge it and all I can do now is continue to undermine it by pointing it out constantly.
It’s absolutely right to criticise the system that provides dividends for white people; for men; for straight, cis, able, neurotypical, tall, pretty people; and so on and so on… But even though I don’t fit into all those boxes, I don’t think that gives me the right to attack people that do.
No, really that doesn’t make it ok. You’re generalizing half the population. It’s not my fault that other people are and have been trash, it’s not my fault that I was born male, and it sure feels great to be generalized with the assholes when I wish every night to just magically wake up with a cis woman’s body (for various reasons am not transitioning and run around as male presenting).
Thank you.
All landlords are parasites. All women are parasites.
One is rather true, in a metaphorical way. The other is a sexist, misogynistic slur.
I’m never quite convinced by this equivalence argument.
Those statements are very much equivalent in this context, the confusion you have is rooted in a false conclusion. You assert one statement is true, and the other is false. The reality is that both statements are false.
If you have a history of dealing with shitty landlords you may draw a conclusion that every landlord must be shitty. That is objectively false—there are many many landlords from all backgrounds and cultures who will behave differently from each other in virtually every way—but it’s an understandable emotional reaction to your personal experiences.
If you have a history of dealing with shitty women you may draw a conclusion that every woman must be shitty. That is objectively false—there are many many women from all backgrounds and cultures who will behave differently from each other in virtually every way—but it’s an understandable emotional reaction to your personal experiences.
Calling all women parasites is indeed sexist bullshit, but calling all landlords parasites isn’t fundamentally better. Generalizing people trends towards nonsense in most cases.
Three objections :
-
I like my current landlord, he’s my friend and we live together. When I say Landlords are parasites, I’m just saying something that, according to me, is a relatively descriptive statement. From a functional point of view, they could very well be described as functioning like parasites do.
-
But that’s not all. Generalization may have different semantic meanings. That’s something political movements have elaborated a lot in the last 60 years. If you read about ACAB, you’ll see quite soon that it’s nowhere near a judgment of all individuals.
-
But the most important argument follows. I’ll gladly say landlords are parasites or ACAB. There are many other variants I’ll never say. One could say it’s arbitrary but it’s far from it, imo. Generalizing on people who are subjects of systematic violence is furthering said violence. Generalizing about powerful interest who are in position to use individualisation and scapegoating of one or their members to ensure the continuation of their power cannot, and it’s not an ideological point, it’s a matter of social science for me, be said to be identical.
I recommend reading Howard Becker’s Whose side are we one, a different, but close and related, demonstration.
-
You can’t justify racism or sexism in any direction without indirectly justifying it in the other direction.
Blaming an entire group for the acts of a subset of that group removes the disincentive to become a part of the subset and adds a disincentive to support those who want to fight the injustice that gets reduced to another racial or gender conflict.
I think it’s no wonder that many gen z males have decided to reject the mindset that demonizes white men in general, even though that mindset is often quick to add, “there’s some good ones!”
And the whole justification of “they have more power” means dick all to individuals that fall in the group that feel powerless in their life. Plus there’s that little voice wondering if the racism will fade if the power balance does shift or if it will be the same thing but with oppression going in the other direction.
Your argument sounds suspiciously like someone looking to justify shitty behavior.
“You can’t acknowledge an extremely well documented culture of hate because that’s reverse sexism/racism”
“You can’t say men are bad because some men are good and if you don’t give them special attention for being good they might start being bad.”
“Some men have it hard too so power imbalance doesn’t exist and you can’t use it to explain why some women are mistrustful of men in general”.
“We need to leave the status quo because if we don’t maybe the others will get control and then they’ll treat us like we treat them now”
All of the above are shitty arguments.
And you sound suspiciously like you don’t want anything to get better and want to see increased racial and gender tensions by rebutting with a series of strawman arguments of the worst ways you could interpret anything I was saying.
I very much want things to get better, I suspect we just have different ideological definitions of “better”.
My version of better is a world where women don’t have to worry about every interaction that they are going to have with men, where they feel safe and secure and no woman ever gets trod upon so often that they feel compelled to lash out. We do this by lifting people up and empathizing with their frustrations, and calling out shitty behavior where we see it.
It sounds like your version of better is where we pretend that everything is ok and carry on like normal, condemning those who make any attempt to empathize as agitators.
Feel free to cite where I have strawman’d you, because I’m only inferring from what you have presented.
We want largely the same outcome, though I don’t believe that the ones doing the shitty behaviour largely care about what others think about what they want to do and require responses more severe than being called out. Like even castration for repeat or more blatant offenders, and if they lash out even more in response to that, execution because they are a lost cause.
I want my daughter to never have to go through the same shit her mother did and so many others.
I also don’t want her growing up in a society where bitter men support laws that make it easier for abusers to control women either and get away with rape on top of it.
The fact that pieces of shit like Andrew Tate have large followings tells me that something about how we’re doing things is wrong. If it wasn’t, then things would be improving. Instead gen Z, which was looking so open minded and promising just a few years ago, is getting bitter and has a divide where a much larger portion of men support(ed) Trump than women.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I don’t think it’s blaming a larger group because it’s difficult to tell which members of that group are the ones causing the problems. Maybe a part of it would be to improve the tools through which proof can be established, like a mechanism for proof of consent or something like that, to reduce the he said/she said aspect that create doubt abusers can use to escape consequences.
Have you tried not to hate yourself? WTF are you even on, there is a high chance that it’s a joke, and even if it isn’t why would “men” be scum here instead of individual?
I don’t hate myself.
I hate that enough men out there are such amazing assholes that it has created a generational issue which understandably has led to the assumption that as a man I’m probably an asshole too.
I hate that women understandably see me in public and make assumptions about my risk factor to them because victimizing women is way too common place.
Me, however, I’m pretty ok with.
Unless you are an asshole, why would you say that you are asshole, if you aren’t sure you can ask. Statements like ‘I don’t hate myself, but actually I think that I’m an asshole because someone else is’ are somewhat conflicting.
You can go ahead and cite your source for me saying I’m an asshole. I’ll wait.
as a man I’m probably an asshole too
Are you going to try to weasel out of your own words by saing that probably here means that you aren’t actually an asshole and you don’t believe you are?
Cherry picking out parts to remove context is a pretty lame way to “win” an argument bro.
Here’s that segment which doesn’t intentionally remove relevant context:
… which understandably has led to the assumption that as a man I’m probably an asshole too.
Which is—fairly clearly—saying that I understand why others might make an assumption about me.
So you assume that other people think that you are an asshole doesn’t actually mean that you think that you are an asshole? It isn’t cherry-picking when discussion started with you generalizing about “men” being not_good by default. There is little that is understandable about such a position, have you tried not to have negative assumptions about yourself and other people that you don’t know?
You’ve cherry-picked that out of context, they were clearly trying to say “other people assume that all men are probably assholes, therefore they assume that that I’m probably an asshole”
He clearly doesn’t hate himself. Stop trying to us vs them.
“Men” are harmful in the same way that you don’t put your hand on an electric stove. You assume it’s going to hurt you until you find out otherwise.
Sorry but if you don’t see how that comparison is beyond not ok somethings wrong here. Which isn’t to say you can’t feel like that bc that’s just the natural result of bad experiences.
Easily half the turkish immigrants I’ve interacted with were people begging or threatening me on the street, that doesn’t mean I assume turkish immigrants are assholes. Because I know it’s both selection bias (most normal ppl just mind their business and don’t randomly talk to you, immigrants are poorer on avg so there are more homeless immigrants). And even if 95% were pieces of shit I’d still at most be more careful, but not somehow try to include all the ones that aren’t a problem in the group that I’m complaining about.
You don’t understand pounding down vs punching up.
No, “men” aren’t harmful any more than “women” are, unless you are completely delusional. People don’t assume that random “men” are going to hurt them unless they have serious problems, or living in the active war zone. This over-dramatization doesn’t help anyone and isolates you from absolute majority if you really think that way. You can isolate yourself, just don’t act like it’s normal in any way.
I can’t even imagine the roganbro brainrot it takes to get to that place. It’s almost impressive in its insanity.
Agreed. I understand the words, but cannot understand the meaning of the phrases. What is “feminine” to voló? And how are ladyboys not part of the woke mind virus? And which type of guy is the dude talking about? It’s confusing to follow.
Pro tip: these people rarely ever make any sense, because they are mental ill.
MAGA is not a political party or ideology. It is a mental illness fuelled by narcissism, religion, tribalism, anti-intellectualism, and nationalism. It’s a dead-end death cult where feelings mean everything, and reality means nothing.
deleted by creator
Isn’t the woke mind virus just not being a piece of shit, in essence.
The “woke mind virus” is basically these people not getting how other people can be empathetic to people who aren’t exactly like them
I saw a comment on YouTube a few weeks ago that I think perfectly captures the mindset of the people who scream about the “woke mind virus”.
The comment was something like “I never had a problem trusting a minority surgeon, but now they’re all woke DEI hires and I can’t trust any of them.”
In other words, “I had no problem with minority surgeons when there were almost none of them because I had to accept that there were a handful of ‘good ones’ that worked hard and earned it. But now that I’m seeing more of them, I know lots of the ‘bad ones’ are getting in that could only get in because it was handed to them because of their skin color.”
In these people’s minds, 95% of white people are “good ones” and 95% of minorities are “bad ones”. So if any respectable job has more than a few percent of minorities, the only logical conclusion for them is that there are lots of “bad ones” getting jobs they aren’t qualified for and didn’t earn.
Many people on the right think that everyone on the left supports tax payer paid gender reassigment surgeries for undocumented immigrants in custody just the same way as many people on the left believe that everyone on the right is misogynistic, transphobic racist.
51% of the country just voted for an openly misogynistic, transphobic racist and the vast majority of them were on the right soooooooo.
And the rest voted for a candidate advocating for tax payer funded gender reassignment surgeris for undocumented immigrants in custody sooooooo.
This game leads nowhere.
An extremely small number of surgeries that have been medically proven to improve outcomes of individuals is totally equivalent to supporting the rise of fascism. Sure buddy. Have fun supporting hatred and bigotry.
Thanks!
You have fun with 4 more years of Trump probably followed with 8 years of J.D. Vance because that’s exactly what this gets you.
I’ll at least be satisfied with being on the right side of history.
You really get what you pay for with this guy
deleted by creator
everyone on the right is misogynistic, transphobic racist.
That is because the being a misogynistic, transphobic racist is the primary personality of the people on the right.
Oh hey I saw that ad on YouTube also but was able to provide seconds of additional research and critical thinking but that can be difficult for some; apparently most.
I tend to fact check myself before making claims like that.
Cheers I’ve read that already. Imagine opposition ads blowing something out of proportion, I am aghast
I don’t watch ads and neither should you. I don’t even understand why YouTube would target europeans with U.S. election ads.
Next step: they’ll take the 4chan troll logic of “it’s gay to like women” seriously
I think it is already a thing on the premise that loving a woman requires softness therefore gay
Unironically I think this is what drives a decent portion of transphobia.
Im a straight dude and I think stockings, high heels, short skirts and boobs are just awesome but I’m also secure enough in my shit to say “That dude makes a pretty hot chick”. I also know that my wife doesnt dress like that because its a lot of work, she doesnt feel the need to. Its very much a “sometimes food” as cookie monster would say.
So when knuckle dragging guys who havent seen their wife out of sweatpants and flipflops in 3 months see a dude who put more effort into their appearance in 1 day and they want to fuck that… They get mad.
Science Vs did an episode on the science behind gender and it blew my mind. How gender is determined biologically is far more nuanced than genitalia. It helped me realize that trans people truly are the sex they claim to be. They have different genitalia, but there are other biological factors at play and they are biologically whatever they say they are.
It helped me understand that “that dude” isn’t a dude. That is a chick and she is beautiful.
Gender, like sexuality, is a spectrum and making it black and white is dumb. It’s all the colours of the spectrum that make life wonderful.
I almost agree with you comment, but I have to say I can not in good conscience pretend like I believe that Cookie Monster knows the concept of a “sometimes food”.
I don’t see which food is being referred to as a “sometimes food” so I will just assume that Cookie Monster was referring to non-cookies when he said that.
For some reason, his general outlook and behaviour doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence that he takes care of his diet, even when it comes down to him theoretically having eaten something else. (Has he, ever? Like “lore-wise.” I don’t watch the Muppets, sorry.)
Cookie monster lost his feet to diabetes.
You’ve never seen his feet have you?
I rest my case.
Ladyboys aren’t dudes, though.
Some are some aren’t. It’s probably closest to the mid 20th century American concept of transvestite, which at the time encompassed everyone from transsexuals (at that time the medical definition of transsexual required what we would today describe as severe dysphoria and exclusive Heterosexuality) to the more modern definitions of trans people, both binary and nonbinary, as well as cisgender crossdressers of all varieties. Source
Transvestite prescriptively means a crossdresser, by the way. Literally, that is. "-vestire “to dress, to clothe” (from PIE *wes- (2) “to clothe,” extended form of root *eu- “to dress”).
I’m not gonna argue over how the terms was used in mid 20th century America, I wouldn’t know. Just like etymology, don’t mind me.
Oh absolutely, and it meant that then because sexology was in the process of catching up with groups of people that medicine had recently gained the ability to make the differences between far more significant. They were also very prone to medical gatekeeping and treating transition as the absolute last resort for those unable to live a normal life as their assigned gender
Ehh a fair amount of them do identify as trans(which is one of the reasons ladyBOY is a really sexist name) and something similar to femboys in the west but there are also the ones who are closer to being males and they just do it for money which is extremely sad. But i am a straight(enough that i have all the priviledge) european male so this just what i heard from others.
I don’t think that prostitution is any more sad than any other job, but it all depends on the situation. If it’s a human-trafficking thing where they’re forced into it, or they have to deal with abusive clients, that’s fucked up.
Ok but there are different fucked uppness levels. Having to work an IT job for example can be pretty chill while working in an amazon warehouse is absolutely horrid from what i heard. And then id say having to dress up and be forced to be another gender to get enough money to stay alive is even more fucked up. Of course you could argue its better than for example in even poorer countries where you would have to do even worse things. But that is a pretty complicated conversation i dont really want to get into or have the qualification for.
Wow, I didn’t know ideas so different could cohabitate together like that in someone’s mind. That’s an extreme case of cognitive dissonance
You should try the PNW. Birkenstock-wearing, Prius driving conservative with trump stickers all over the hybrid car.
Did you just see my neighbors driveway through their ring camera?!
They must take a lot of shit on bowling league nights when they show up in a hybrid.
Fellas, is it woke to be hetero?
Wait a minute.
Checks the Tate guide to Masculine Success
yes
Is the “woke mind virus” a euphemism or do people believe there’s an actual virus? I could imagine something like that coming from people who make videos about chemtrails.
I don’t know if he started it, but I’ve heard Musk use that phrase so I’m sure it helps the deplorables feel like real galaxy brains for hating the right people.
I’m sure to almost all, it is a euphemism. Although I’d also bet there are some people in Florida and Alabama who believe it is a literal virus that is spreading like wildfire through college campuses.
Is the “woke mind virus” a euphemism or do people believe there’s an actual virus?
Do you think the people who use language like that understand what viruses actually are, besides “something infectious”?
No, to most of them viruses and bacteria are all just “germs”. But considering how many people believe fluoride is for mind control I can easily imagine them believing the “Biden crime family” are literally spreading mind-control germs that turn people gay or atheist or make them love SoCiALiZm.
Nope
nope it’s not a euphemism or nope they don’t believe it’s an actual virus?
They think trans people only exist because of propaganda.
They don’t think its a virus.
I have been on the “Misogynist stay-at-home gamers who want ‘a girl they can game with’ really just want a trans BF, but they’re to transphobic to admit it to themselves” wave for a while now, and they just keep giving me more evidence.
This kind of thing terrifies me. I think there’s a solid chance that that particular tweet is a joke, but the idea that there are people out there honestly concerned with the “woke mind virus” and about how women are this and that is horrifying.
Even more, the possibility that I’m just blind to my own insanity is what really fucks me up. What if they’re right and I’m crazy? Seeing so much insanity that you just have to wonder if your own sanity has been compromised.
What if they’re right and I’m crazy?
If I ever have that thought, I remember I’m not the one who hates people for immutable traits, or punches down in the name of humour
I remind myaelf of this all the time, to the point that this post pretty much wins the thread.
Tap for spoiler
(Seriously lmao the MRA’s choosing this thread to #NotAllMen in is just the chef’s kiss.)
(Which is on top of:
Sanity is overrated No i mean it i reject Sanism )
What if they’re right and I’m crazy?
Keep asking yourself this. Try to honestly see things from their point of view. It makes you stronger. To paraphrase Sun Tzu,
- if you only think through your own beliefs, you’ll have a 50-50 chance of success.
- if you think through your own beliefs, AND understand your adversary’s point of view, you will always succeed.
- if you do neither, you will always fail.
Yeah, I reckon it’s good to question one’s own beliefs and presuppositions. Still, it’s upsetting.
What if I understand my enemy but not myself?
Oh boy you are in for a treat
I love treats :D
This is why RFK doesn’t eat McDonalds to get the woke mind virus brain worms.
He shot heroin for 15 years to keep away the woke.
Is this another term for trans women, or something different?
Edit: thanks for everyone who’s educated me, this is really interesting!
Not really, although it can be used as such, usually by folks who don’t really know what they’re talking about.
Gender identity in Thailand is complicated
Freaking fascinating.
In western trans culture, most trans women would consider being called a “ladyboy” or “shemale” an overly sexualized insult. It’s primarily used when referring to sex workers, not to someones identity. It’s similar to calling a random woman who has children a MILF. So don’t refer to someone as this unless that is a label they apply to themselves first.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to truly make definitive statements about how the term is used in Thailand, but from what I understand it’s a rough/poor translation from “Kathoey” which is used for anyone outside of traditional gender roles meaning a more direct/correct translation would be non-binary or queer.
On a related note, Femmeboy is a term used in the west, but that is specifically referring to a younger man/boy who is effeminate. It is specifically saying they are not trans, so could be anything from a femme gay boy to someone who enjoys crossdressing.
maybe “androgynous” would be a better direct translation but what do i know
Kathoey are definitely not androgynous. They are explicitly living as women would, and present very feminine as shown. To varying degrees of success in passing, but it isn’t an issue. Nobody tells them they can’t be kathoey. They just are.
There is a lesser known opposite, Tom. As in, Tomboy. These are afab who essentially live as men. Less so than kathoey, I will say, presumably because society isn’t as ready for afab to play male roles. But they will wear short hair, dress masculine, and usually have relationships with with cis-women, known as "Dee (for “good (girl)” 🫤). When was there more than a decade ago at the start of social media really taking off, there was a high-society generational trend of cis-girls dating tomboys in their late teens, as a way to be safe from pregnancy/abuse while still being the cool girl who dates on Insta. You imagine this to be pretty sad at times for Toms who get abandoned as soon as said ciswomen are more stable in life.
They are explicitly living as women would, and present very feminine as shown
Degendering, or refusing to gender a trans person by only using neutral language such as they/them is an incredibly rude thing to do. It’s the equivalent of two siblings going “I’m not
touchingmisgendering you!”. Obviously in the course of conversation using they/them makes sense for everyone in certain sentences. But at a certain point it’s just dehumanizing. I’m not non-binary, I’m a woman.Next time your BF/GF is getting dressed up tell em how androgynous they are looking and see how well they take it…
I’m using the plural. Kathoey is both singular and plural in Thai. I would hope you’d also pick that up from “women”.
I’m also being careful not to equate 1-1 the kathoey identity with the transwoman identity. They aren’t the same, though the global conversation I am sure will eventually bring them closer.
You’re correct on both points and that’s my mistake.
Cross dressers rather than trans, from my understanding.
Sort of. I think it covers a range of things from trans to cross dressers.
I think it’s just something we westerners used before trans people popped into existence over here about five years ago.
Trans people didn’t “pop into existence,” they’ve always been here, even being an important group in the Stonewall riots.
It’s just that it became more acceptable to come out, so reactionaries went full-on open season on them in an effort to force them back in the closet in an aggressive attempt to protect their own fragile identities.
They have their own mind virus which makes them think that meek, innocent, naive hyperfeminity is the only valid femininity. They watch anime[1] and terribly written women in film. Both of which infantilize women. And they watch women get dominated by men in porn.
The concept of femininity in these boys’ heads is completely divorced from what it actually means to be a woman. To be a human being. They want all women to dress in school girl outfits, short skirts, or satin dresses. Women who should spend 100% of their time trying to please their husband, a word that historically means “a man who manages a property”. They see women as sexy property.
As a bonus, they all want “trad wives” and yet they vote for politicians that make it impossible to survive on a single income unless they want to live in a trailer park.
Thirteen anime fans couldn’t handle this comment.
Anime fans, miss me with your examples of “badass” women in anime. They all still look like little girls 90% of the time. ↩︎
Almost all anime characters look 12.
God forgives, but the bradster doesn’t
