• I've created a thread for feedback on the reaction/likes feature Feedback thread

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

San Jose State Women’s Volleyball Team Finds Itself at Center of Transgender Debate


The San Jose State University women’s volleyball team is trying to make the N.C.A.A. tournament for the first time in 23 years. But first, it must find schools willing to play against it.

The University of Nevada, Reno, became the fifth school this season to decline to compete against San Jose State when it pulled out of a game scheduled for last Saturday in response to reports that a player on San Jose’s team is a transgender woman. The others that have decided not to play the team are Southern Utah University, Boise State University, the University of Wyoming and Utah State University.​

 
My lefty friends almost inevitably characterize the legal and cultural conflict described in the above article as one between enlightened progressives on one side and deplorable regressives on the other (a framing somewhat abetted by the Times); I tend to view it as a struggle between the working class (e.g. students sweating it out on athletic scholarships) and the symbolic capitalist class who control the physical and social infrastructure of sport (i.e. gymnasia, rules committees, etc.).
 
Last edited:
My lefty friends almost inevitably characterize the legal and cultural conflict described in the above article as one between enlightened progressives on one side and deplorable regressives on the other (a framing somewhat abetted by the Times); I tend to view it as a struggle between the working class (e.g. students sweating it out on athletic scholarships) and the symbolic capitalist class who control the physical and social infrastructure of sport (i.e. gymnasia, rules committees, etc.).
I think the progressive habit is to cloak a group as "marginalized/oppressed" and the other as "oppressor." Once a group is cloaked as "marginalized" that group can behave terribly but such terrible behavior will always be excused because they're "marginalized."

GaObFb6boAAmtwn
 
I think the progressive habit is to cloak a group as "marginalized/oppressed" and the other as "oppressor." Once a group is cloaked as "marginalized" that group can behave terribly but such terrible behavior will always be excused because they're "marginalized."
I don't think that's quite right. Sorting every cultural conflict into oppressed and oppressor groups is a reflex of those imbued with the as-yet-unnamed successor ideology which aims to replace liberalism. Progressivism, for all its faults, predates this mindset by at least several decades.
 
I think the progressive habit is to cloak a group as "marginalized/oppressed" and the other as "oppressor." Once a group is cloaked as "marginalized" that group can behave terribly but such terrible behavior will always be excused because they're "marginalized."
My response to this is somewhat less nuanced and more direct, more along the line of the sentiment expressed on this bumper-sticker. I have taken steps to make sure that my girls and women are able to defend themselves when confronted with one of those men self-IDing as women... if they **** around, they're gonna find out.

FB_IMG_1727094412494.jpg
 
My response to this is somewhat less nuanced and more direct, more along the line of the sentiment expressed on this bumper-sticker. I have taken steps to make sure that my girls and women are able to defend themselves when confronted with one of those men self-IDing as women... if they **** around, they're gonna find out.

FB_IMG_1727094412494.jpg
How do your women know the person is self-iding?
 
My lefty friends almost inevitably characterize the legal and cultural conflict described in the above article as one between enlightened progressives on one side and deplorable regressives on the other (a framing somewhat abetted by the Times); I tend to view it as a struggle between the working class (e.g. students sweating it out on athletic scholarships) and the symbolic capitalist class who control the physical and social infrastructure of sport (i.e. gymnasia, rules committees, etc.).
Really? I view it as a struggle between reality and wish-fulfillment-by-coercion.
 
I don't think that's quite right. Sorting every cultural conflict into oppressed and oppressor groups is a reflex of those imbued with the as-yet-unnamed successor ideology which aims to replace liberalism. Progressivism, for all its faults, predates this mindset by at least several decades.
We might not yet have a catchy name for people to start using sarcastically... but this constellation of views is so tightly tied to progressivism that I think most people can see it for what it is.

I think this bit really captures it well:
We are in a war in which the forces of justice and progress are arrayed against the forces of backwardness and oppression. And in a war, the normal rules of the game — due process; political compromise; the presumption of innocence; free speech; even reason itself — must be suspended. Indeed, those rules themselves were corrupt to begin with — designed, as they were, by dead white males in order to uphold their own power.
 
NYT has an interesting article :
"U.S. Study on Puberty Blockers Goes Unpublished Because of Politics, Doctor Says
The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress and that the finding might be weaponized by opponents of the care."

The MD in question, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, is apparently also known for her remark (in a talk about "gender-affirming" surgery) that the risk of allowing teen girls to have double mastectomies was minimal because "If they want breasts later in life, they can go and get them!".
 
Last edited:
The MD in question, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, is apparently also known for her remark (in a talk about "gender-affirming" surgery) that the risk of allowing teen girls to have double mastectomies was minimal because "If they want breasts later in life, they can go and get them!".
It's remarkable how willing an MD is to sacrifice the functionality of female breast tissue in order to push an ideology in this way. when those mastectomies are performed, they remove the milk glands completely. Artificial implants don't come with brand new glands, so those young females are giving up their ability to breastfeed and to pass on their antibodies to their infants.

Of course, that's assuming that those young de-breasted females aren't made sterile as a result of the blockers and/or testosterone, and don't end up with vaginal atrophy.

You know what gets me? The carelessness with which the future fertility of these young females is cast aside... while the medical industry is simultaneously lobbying that in-vitro fertilization should be a mandated essential health benefit. Either fertility is important or it's not. This current situation of it being vitally important for currently grown females but totally not at all important for teen and young females who haven't yet got to the point where they want kids really makes me angry.
 
Really? I view it as a struggle between reality and wish-fulfillment-by-coercion.
That isn't exactly incompatible with my workers vs. symbolic capitalists framework.

The latter group is vastly more susceptible to ideological capture and delusions of wish fulfillment, the former group is laying hands and eyes on reality.
 
This is absolutely brilliant.

 
I don't think that's quite right. Sorting every cultural conflict into oppressed and oppressor groups is a reflex of those imbued with the as-yet-unnamed successor ideology which aims to replace liberalism. Progressivism, for all its faults, predates this mindset by at least several decades.
The only problem with progressivism is that it's very loosely defined. Nobody ever thought of themselves as the villain in their own story, and nobody ever got far by telling their followers, "not gonna lie to you, these changes will suck hairy ass for most of you." So essentially any change from the status quo can be filed under "progressive".

Point in case, both communism AND fascism were progressive at their time. The idea that fascism sold was to ditch the old ways, with the old bickering of conservatives vs liberals, industrialists vs proletariat, etc, and replace it with something new that's better for everyone. Or Mao's Great Leap Forward, well, there's a reason he called it "forward" not "backwards".

Essentially what I'm saying is that there's a reason why the appeal to novelty is a fallacy.

Now that's not to say one needs to be stuck in the past, but one does need to critically examine whether a proposed new idea is actually better.
 
Back
Top Bottom