Link honest t

  My insight personally on right wing talking point things can be found here

Some liberal 1.0ers/old school leftists I've seen online have been wrongly branded a conservative because they hold a few conservative positions (mainly to do with wokeism) and yet such people have only ever voted green or lib left, and hold a majority of more left views (e.g. taxation, social welfare, minimum wage, workers' rights, family, guns, etc, views which I myself also hold).

If you agree with a wokey on 99/100 issues, the one issue you disagree with makes you alt right in their small minds. JP

That is 100% the biggest problem with the liberal 2.0 and I guess the left also. The second someone steps out of line they wrongly and falsely smear them as a far right fascist. It's braindead behavior. I am very left wing if not far left on most things. It doesn't help anyone to call me a nazi or bigot, it doesn't bring unity, it doesn't help your cause, it pushes me away from it. And most reasonable people by far are like me.

Only people like The Five (Fox News) and the non right wing guests of Tucker Carlson (Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore etc) are only allowed to tell the truth because they want to demonize the truth. The truth is just "fox news talking points" now. See here for more

The term 'right-wing talking points' is overused by Liberal 2.0ers and some leftists

It's only ever used to shutdown leftists and to a lesser extent progressives making critiques of liberal 2.0ers from the left.. The right wing does not own talking points , especially when they're legitimate

It’s not that right wing talking points don’t exist; right wing think tanks put out lists of issues and current events that they think the right wing should be talking about, and right wing pundits pick those up (you think rightist Tomi Lahren is capable of coming up with any original ideas of her own?).

However, those talking points are never “Criticize Democrats for not being left enough.” Liberal 2.0ers just got so accustomed to criticism of proto liberalism 2.0/liberalism 2.0 always coming from the right wing and further right that they assume left-wing (and progressive) criticism of liberalism 2.0 must come from the same place. It’s also this irritatingly smug attitude that people of other political persuasions get duped by misinformation campaigns (the left are spinning talking points that were fed to them by the right, the right is fooled by Russian fake news), but they think they never get duped themselves.

This reddit thread also touches on (and expands upon) this issue and I generally agree with a lot to the vast majority of points in that thread

It is stupid dumb and crazy to label life long liberals as 'fascist right wingers' because they believe in biology, free speech, and equal opportunity. Crazy times. See here for some similar points jbp  (in the online trans communities trans people and their allies tend to label anti trans people as 'fascist'. It's sort of cute in a tumblr sort of way and understandable that they use such language for anti trans people)

I support free speech and equal opportunity and I am a leftist. Those are very good things.

I didn’t perceive a difference a decade ago not because i was against anything but it just wasn’t something mainstream that people talked or thought about. (Broad strokes here clearly)

Sex and gender always were synonymous…up until not too long ago

But after the woke revolution I can see and respect the difference between biological sex and self identified gender as I mentioned throughout the sex, gender and LGBTQ sections of my blog

I wish the trans movement would have made up a new word instead of commandeering the word “gender” for their own use. I don’t think an argument would have even been made if they made up a new word because it’s pretty obvious that certain people feel differently than their biological sex on the inside.

"If that free speech issue is that you like to call marginalized people slurs. Sure you are a conservative. Yet Jordan Peterson is a pretty big transphobic ignoramus, so that is another belief that officially makes a person conservative."   a Liberal 2.0er replying to above 'life long liberals now called fascist right wingers' point above

My reply to said Liberal 2.0ers is A person who posts this quoted bolded rhetoric above proves my point.

"Peterson is a pretty big transphobic ignoramus so that is another belief that officially makes you conservative.

So someone with such views is 'conservative' because of one issue. A single issue. You couldn't make it up.

We've learned in the past couple years why terms left /liberal and right are not just useless labels, they are harmful ones, especially in the way people generalize their opinions (like in Canada) yet the political landscape and meaning of left liberal and right has drastically changed as noted above

We got to stop talking in left liberal and right. It doesn't mean dung and anyone that uses these terms broadly looks like a decendent today.

Why is it the media can define peoples political views as 'right wing' or 'full of right wing talking points' etc but a person can define their own gender?

Some online omniliberal seeking the truth "If someone is temperamentally a centrist but spends all their time doing right wing media, engaging in and aligning to the right wing discourse and publishing pieces about why the liberals and leftists are bad and are leading the world to hell… then like why would his assessment of his temperament make any difference as to him being a conservative public figure? Do we consider the temperaments of other partisan media figures and content creators before categorizing them?"

My ideology is out there like JP. At least for me, I can speak against fake left (liberal 2.0ers) because most people on the right currently agrees that ethno nationalism is bad and they don't support white supremacists. The liberal 2.0ers supports EVERY liberal 2.0 position for the sake of protecting the tribe. That's why in current environment, speaking against woke liberalism 2.0 is more important. If we see the right shift towards ethno nationalism or religious state, I will fight them more (if possible) as well.

You can read more good points on this here

I really want to be wrong on this because its very disheartening. But anytime I see a socialist in person or online it seems like most of them hold some unique but out there view on how everyone is a corporate shill (which they might be but I digress) or a hoax or their party is just perfect or some conspiracy about the other side or any number of things that appear absolutely weird to me. The right wing are as far from perfect as someone falling through a black hole from the perspective of an observer, the right wing for example are cringy, annoying, etc. but I at least don't find most of the mainstream ones to be that batshit crazy (to an extent)

Every time I see a socialist if they have an opinion that isn't supported by facts, its not that they are wrong but the facts are "PR from big corporations" or "right wing talking points" or whatever.

But this thread provides some good thought on that

More good points on this type of matter here (like here, archived here)

https://www.reddit.com/r/honesttransgender/comments/sckkou/why_undermine_transmeds_but_not_terfs/

Thats because inclus people use TERF arguments themselves.

No, really.

A lot of hardcore inclus/pro-xeno/pro-neo/non-dysphoric arguments are straight up transphobia imho.

Ever heard gender is a social construct? It gets not only used to justify so much BS, like choosing to be trans, that gender is whatever you want it to be, that being trans is really really cool, that people should be recruited into it, that you can just choose labels because they make you feel "comfy" and words dont have meaning anyway, that only society needs to change and accept trans people to "make us better" (as in fix our dysphoria without medical transition) kinda like overweight people just want to define beauty rather than lose weight, and a ton of other stuff, but in reality all that undermines dysphoric trans people who CANT choose and are stuck being trans and absolutely NEED to medically transition to even have a life worth speaking of.

Apart from being wrapped in a pro-trans tunic its essentially the same thing as TERFs saying being trans is a choice, a trend people just hop on to, that trans people erode the meaning of words like "woman" and "man", that we dont need transition etc. the only difference being that TERFs argue that from the standpoint of "biological reality" (aka youll always be your biological sex) and that evil evil "men" get into womens restrooms and other safe spaces.

I just wanted to give an example here, not an exhaustive list, but if anyone wants to add some other examples I wont be offended. Its just amazing how well just this alone plays into TERF rhetoric, how transphobic these supposedly pro-trans arguments become when you deconstruct them with a focus on how they apply (or rather dont) to dysphoric trans people.

The other reason why mainstream (as in inclus) trans spaces dont attack TERFs much is because TERFs and inclus people arent enemies. Most inclus people are AFAB non-dysphorics of a wide variety that TERFs need not care about because they dont invade womens restrooms, so TERFs arent a threat to being pupgender gendervoid whatever mountain of labels you want.

Who is a threat to those people is transmeds, because we actually have the most problems because of the commodification of transness, its transformation into this benign fashion choice, aesthetic and so forth, because 80% of inclus rhetoric shoots us dysphoric people in the foot, and about the same amount of inclus people hurt our reputation by being absolutely vile whenever someone isnt 110% pro their flavor of trans, pizzagender, recugender and all, and that hurts our public image, too.

People IRL are afraid of trans people like me. Like most dysphorics, Im perfectly chill when people slip up, but people constantly bite their tongues around me and stumble over themselves with a dozen apologies at once over every mistake because they are just afraid that Ill blow up at them if they dare offend me in the slightest. That kind of thing might be a nice feeling for a narcissist or something, but to me its just in the way of genuinely connecting with people.

TERFs and the kindof people you're talking about both agree that the idea of changing sex is like identifying as a frog. One thinks they're equally ridiculous, the other thinks they're equally hecking valid as long as you "genuwuinely feel that way". Both believe that trans acceptance is about everyone playing along to a delusion except that one is so far up their ass they can't tell the difference between delusion and reality.

Actually yeah, I agree with you. This is pretty much exactly what I've experienced from TERFs as well.

The TERFs I argued with most recently were all about how gender is a social construct that was just created to oppress women. Except then they took it another extra step and said "woman isn't an idea in a man's head" too. (Because they always have to take it to ridiculous levels smfh) And it is inclus that say gender is a social construct.

Inclus are also the ones that are crying out to abolish gender and that gender is over, which I'm assuming TERFs saw and assumed meant trans people wanted to erode the meaning of "man" and "woman" like you said.

Their definition of gender was gender roles and expressions in society. This is the basis in which they don't believe that trans people are real because they think that trans people believe they aren't their sex due to social constructs. And amongst inclus exists literal political trans people that claim to be trans to fight these social constructs.

I think this is the core of my frustration with these debates. Almost every debate I see of TERFs being ridiculous, I can think of an example of it happening on the inclus side. Granted, TERFs are just the worst and are picking out the worst examples of trans people at all times to discredit us, so I don't take the fringe cases of the trans community as a serious threat to give TERFs ground against us, but man if it isn't frustrating and feels like I am being undermined by my own community while fighting against bigotry.

For example, TERFs claiming that someone who looks like a fully cis man can "identify" as a woman and is supposed to be allowed in woman's spaces where women are supposed to be protected from men simply because they said they are a woman. I can argue that trans people are literally just trying to live their lives and be accepted as who they are. But the truth is, the inclus rhetoric IS that:

• trans people don't need to present differently from their ASAB or transition in any sense to still be trans • anyone who identifies as a trans woman is a trans woman • trans women are women

This rhetoric while well meaning for trans people that can't transition and/or are GNC, unfortunately allows actual cis male predators a method to access trans and women's spaces in order to cause harm to both groups.

I really think that cis predators should be gatekept and there should be a basis to exclude them from the trans label as they are cis men pretending to be trans, but again, the movement is that if you question anyone's transness or infer that anyone might not be trans then you are transphobic. Any gatekeeping to protect ourselves is not allowed, and also gives TERFs a leg to stand on.

Also I have literally had so many people thank me for being understanding and not being mad or upset at them for messing up pronouns when they are still getting used to them. I hate that that does say a lot about their opinion on trans people and their possible previous experiences.

12

Reply

Share