Mr anonymous, you just put forth your opinions about trans people being an ideology, but you don't substantiate your claims. Even your detransitioner examples? Where are they? I read the detransition articles all the time, and most of them are full of anger, and the blame is on trans people and transitioning, when they should look at their own projection and failure to take personal responsibility for what they did and chose to do. If you read closely, many detransition articles don't really talk about regret in terms of solid examples of how they were harmed. And there's not always a case of clear-cut regret, but those are the only ones you will read about mostly. If they got a mastectomy or other surgeries, there's no actual mention that the surgeon was incompetent or that there were complications. But oh do they try. The Genspect people. The detransitioner got the transition services they needed. And apparently one time we're just like us: consumers who should be educated and work with their providers. And since I'm trans and I'm fully engaged with these systems, I know it's not an overnight quicky kind of thing. There are papers to sign, things to discuss, and time drags on. It's not like going to a drive-through restaurant and pulling up to the window and getting everything you want in one shot. And we can study detransition and find out why some were still not satisfied. Because there will be a percentage of failures --that is the case for all of medicine. But most of it does not have to do with transitioning and gender-affirming care being a failure. They went through a process that's actually lengthy and not an overnight sensation, as transition is said to be. They sought the services of healthcare and medical professionals. They went through a process. A process that allows adequate time to back out. Sure there may be problems but then let's talk about the actual problems but not painting every trans person with the same brush and advocating for our complete eradication from society (including our health care, access to government agencies, insurance, and so much more). Instead, I suspect many of these people are showcased by the anti-trans crowd on Substack, which is not just a huge number -- but an army. And I had more to say about this but it's late and I'm not going to leave even a longer comment. But people like you don't really know what the process is, and what trans lives are like. You operate from your keyboard and pretend you've done your due diligence. And believe you really know about our lives. You are so heavy into politics and ideology and worrying about culture wars, but I don't see you as somebody open-minded, capable of responsible public discourse, and truly wanting to investigate a situation with an intellectual curiosity and Goodwill towards understanding and solutions.
I mostly keep my mouth shut, but people like you get on here and you pedal the same stuff. And I've read many many articles about trans people on Substack -- both pro and con. Over the last year and a half and particularly the last few months. We're not some dangerous ideology, and there's nothing many of you can really hang your hat on. You're just winging it, and it's conjecture. And you create a fantasy in your minds because you're equally obsessed --just the way you think trans people are. And there's hardly enough pushback on Substack, so you folks get away with it and people buy into it. You bought into a fiction and fantasy created by the extreme right, the Republicans, the Vatican, and the whole bunch of them -- that are deciding a narrow and very limited way of being regarding public and private life for Americans. It's exclusionary. And queer and trans people are just plain not part of their picture. You folks talk about identity, but our identity and existence is to be denied as policy. Eliminating us means that we don't have to be dealt with. And there is therefore no need for necessarily services or accommodation of any sort. That's the plan. I was reading today about SCOTUS and was reminded that people like Justice Amy Coney Barrett don't even see us as a class of people. And the logic is we can't be wronged because we don't exist as a class of people. WTF? They just wrote us off. To you we are a fringe group, but to ourselves we are people who are expected to be treated as productive citizens in society, with a legitimate identity and to be members of the population in good standing. And a group that could actually be wronged and there should be remedies based on laws that protect us. But that gets stripped from us. And folks like you get on here and you want to strip us of any credibility and rights.
And mention of the Heritage Foundation is where I would like to see more emphasis, because these are the people that are actively damaging trans people right now. These type of well-funded organizations. We can debate history and we can go over what happened 20 or 30 years ago -- and go all the way back to Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and conservative beginnings -- and the momentum they built quietly to arrive at this moment for the last year now. Or juxtapose the trans experience with gay history and homosexuality exclusion in decades past. But what is happening now is unique and completely separate from those past times and past presidencies. People cannot talk about us without bringing us into their own perspective and lives. Everything about us is framed from everybody else's perspective, schema, blueprint, and model for living. We have our interests, separate goals and expectations. No, we are not like you. And we are not the LGB_QIA+ stepchildren.
The Good Transsexual: hey Kenzie didn't we agree there will be no late night rants or writing a zine on somebody's comment section. The constant f*ukury is not your concern and you're wearing yourself out here.
Kenzie: You're right. As a senior witch🧙 I'm too busy making hypnotizing potions for the transgender cult anyway. I don't need to be here.
Joseph McConville’s story. Good job finding someone to corroborate the idea of alt-right radicalization. I can find plenty of detransitioners to make the same accusations about the trans community. If you dismiss them, you can’t accept him.
>This change in public perception may be because of the growing claims that falsely link transgender people as perpetrators of mass violence and domestic terrorism.
There has been links to trans identity or ideology in recent shootings. This is a trend that seems to be increasing and is more prominent due to trans-activism. Combine that with popular rhetoric of threatening violence against TERFs, “punch a nazi” (and then label everyone in disagreement as a nazi), the existence of Trantifa, and general hate and death-threats online, it is a fair question to ask: has a certain proportion of the trans community changed public perception for the worse all by themselves?
There is considerable overlap between the trans-activist and progressive anti-capitalist/anti-colonialist/anti-racist communities. They don’t worry about hiding their contempt for the family, for straight white men, the USA, and capitalism. They are happy to agitate for socialism/communism.
>Since 2022, Americans have increased their favorability towards laws limiting protections for trans people and have become less favorable towards policies safeguarding them.
This is a one-sided framing of the issue that fails to provide ANY example and any counterargument. TERFs aren’t alt-right and they vehemently oppose “inclusive” policies that, from their perspective, removes the rights of women to have spaces free from men.
This is a point of ideological conflict: that a male can never be a woman, not ever; that womanhood is not relegated to a costume; that “gender” as a social construct requires biological intervention in case of dysphoria (for “truscum”) or just anyone who wants it.
>But how did Americans get taken to believe this anti-LGBTQ lie?
It’s not “anti-LGBTQ”. It’s a refusal to buy into the lie of “transgenderism”. There are many gay and lesbian people who don’t want the TQ bundled with them. “Trans” isn’t a sexuality, and “Queer” is largely a political identity.
Then the article quotes Thekla Morgenroth who absolutely infuses politics into research:
A good example is: The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary
>[M]any of the people behind the rhetoric today hold powerful positions in the government.
Goes on to mention 3 people: Boebert (rep for Colorado), Dillon (ast. DOJ AG), and Paxton (Texas AG). You want to blame them? Fine, if that’s the case, we can hold the following people accountable for words promoting violence:
Joe Biden "It's time to put Trump in a bullseye."
Kamala Harris "They’re not gonna stop... and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop... and they should not."
Nancy Pelosi "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be."
Chuck Schumer "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."
Ayanna Pressley "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives."
Maxine Waters "We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."; "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."
Dan Goldman "He is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy, and he has to be eliminated."
These are just a few examples. That’s not including the relentless media bias and general ridiculous demonizing language from Democrats.
More from Morgenroth:
>People are very attached to the way that they think about gender because it gives them a sense of certainty—it gives them a sense of who they are and who they’re not
The sex/gender split and subsequent equation of gender with gender identity was a genius rhetorical divide but regardless of whether you want to differentiate biological sex (if admitted as a reality, which not all activists do; Morgenroth seems to have ignored Paglia completely) from experience of one’s sexed identity (“gender”). People are uncomfortable with a movement that pushes them to deny reality and essentially participate in delusion.
>Vandello says many young men fall for anti-trans narratives because they confirm their place of privilege in the world and validate their insecurities
Based on what? This is pure assertion, that men believe that should hold a place of privilege. His research doesn’t support that link. It doesn’t account for status loss in contexts where trans ideology is readily embraced, such as clinical psychology graduate school, where any opponent, not just men, risk such loss. There are also other potential correlational effects. His conclusion is specious at best.
Here’s a nice strawman:
>Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist who’s best known as an outspoken anti-trans thought leader and has said that using someone’s preferred pronouns is the road to authoritarianism.
Peterson didn’t say “using someone’s preferred pronouns is the road to authoritarianism”. He decried legally compelled speech. He specifically called out a Canadian law that effectively made it criminal to NOT use pronouns. Bill C-16 amended Canadian human rights law to include gender identity/expression as protected grounds and then noted that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already interpreted refusal to use preferred pronouns as discriminatory harassment and handed out fines to people.
If the article was honest and in good faith, he would describe Peterson as saying, “legal compelling individuals to use preferred pronouns is the road to authoritarianism.” That’s an accurate representation.
Another anecdote, this time Justin Brown-Ramsey. He didn’t get that opinion from Peterson. He utterly misunderstood the argument. By the way, Peterson’s catalogue of lectures existed on YouTube prior to any of this. He has never said what people accuse him of saying.
>“Social media companies are feeding people more extreme content, more emotional content,” Vandello says. He explained that emotionality is what has made the online alt-right successful at manipulating users against transgender people.
This is true, and it applies to the communists and trans activists. It applies to any fringe ideology.
>Siteman agrees: “ It’s always framed about fear, anger, and just some sense of belonging.”
The lack of awareness here is astounding. This is what many fringe movements are based on. Yes, some of the alt-right are about this, and so some people in street gangs, trans movements, antifa, political groups, racial groups like the KKK and BLM, etc, etc.
And here we go… the underlying political statement:
>“That trajectory is really just me learning, ‘Why should I be at odds with a trans person if both of us work crappy jobs and can’t pay our bills?’ Obviously, that’s not who I should be angry at, but it took a while to get around to that,” Brown-Ramsey says.
“Don’t be mad at trans people, hate the capitalists! Hate the country! Hate your family! Us reds will embrace you!”
The Minneapolis shooter wasn't trans, neither was the Charlie Kirk shooter. The disinfo campaign is crazy, even this article calls the Minneapolis shooter trans. The hell?
Mr anonymous, you just put forth your opinions about trans people being an ideology, but you don't substantiate your claims. Even your detransitioner examples? Where are they? I read the detransition articles all the time, and most of them are full of anger, and the blame is on trans people and transitioning, when they should look at their own projection and failure to take personal responsibility for what they did and chose to do. If you read closely, many detransition articles don't really talk about regret in terms of solid examples of how they were harmed. And there's not always a case of clear-cut regret, but those are the only ones you will read about mostly. If they got a mastectomy or other surgeries, there's no actual mention that the surgeon was incompetent or that there were complications. But oh do they try. The Genspect people. The detransitioner got the transition services they needed. And apparently one time we're just like us: consumers who should be educated and work with their providers. And since I'm trans and I'm fully engaged with these systems, I know it's not an overnight quicky kind of thing. There are papers to sign, things to discuss, and time drags on. It's not like going to a drive-through restaurant and pulling up to the window and getting everything you want in one shot. And we can study detransition and find out why some were still not satisfied. Because there will be a percentage of failures --that is the case for all of medicine. But most of it does not have to do with transitioning and gender-affirming care being a failure. They went through a process that's actually lengthy and not an overnight sensation, as transition is said to be. They sought the services of healthcare and medical professionals. They went through a process. A process that allows adequate time to back out. Sure there may be problems but then let's talk about the actual problems but not painting every trans person with the same brush and advocating for our complete eradication from society (including our health care, access to government agencies, insurance, and so much more). Instead, I suspect many of these people are showcased by the anti-trans crowd on Substack, which is not just a huge number -- but an army. And I had more to say about this but it's late and I'm not going to leave even a longer comment. But people like you don't really know what the process is, and what trans lives are like. You operate from your keyboard and pretend you've done your due diligence. And believe you really know about our lives. You are so heavy into politics and ideology and worrying about culture wars, but I don't see you as somebody open-minded, capable of responsible public discourse, and truly wanting to investigate a situation with an intellectual curiosity and Goodwill towards understanding and solutions.
I mostly keep my mouth shut, but people like you get on here and you pedal the same stuff. And I've read many many articles about trans people on Substack -- both pro and con. Over the last year and a half and particularly the last few months. We're not some dangerous ideology, and there's nothing many of you can really hang your hat on. You're just winging it, and it's conjecture. And you create a fantasy in your minds because you're equally obsessed --just the way you think trans people are. And there's hardly enough pushback on Substack, so you folks get away with it and people buy into it. You bought into a fiction and fantasy created by the extreme right, the Republicans, the Vatican, and the whole bunch of them -- that are deciding a narrow and very limited way of being regarding public and private life for Americans. It's exclusionary. And queer and trans people are just plain not part of their picture. You folks talk about identity, but our identity and existence is to be denied as policy. Eliminating us means that we don't have to be dealt with. And there is therefore no need for necessarily services or accommodation of any sort. That's the plan. I was reading today about SCOTUS and was reminded that people like Justice Amy Coney Barrett don't even see us as a class of people. And the logic is we can't be wronged because we don't exist as a class of people. WTF? They just wrote us off. To you we are a fringe group, but to ourselves we are people who are expected to be treated as productive citizens in society, with a legitimate identity and to be members of the population in good standing. And a group that could actually be wronged and there should be remedies based on laws that protect us. But that gets stripped from us. And folks like you get on here and you want to strip us of any credibility and rights.
And mention of the Heritage Foundation is where I would like to see more emphasis, because these are the people that are actively damaging trans people right now. These type of well-funded organizations. We can debate history and we can go over what happened 20 or 30 years ago -- and go all the way back to Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and conservative beginnings -- and the momentum they built quietly to arrive at this moment for the last year now. Or juxtapose the trans experience with gay history and homosexuality exclusion in decades past. But what is happening now is unique and completely separate from those past times and past presidencies. People cannot talk about us without bringing us into their own perspective and lives. Everything about us is framed from everybody else's perspective, schema, blueprint, and model for living. We have our interests, separate goals and expectations. No, we are not like you. And we are not the LGB_QIA+ stepchildren.
I've kept it civil, which is not easy to do.
Good night. HH
The Good Transsexual: hey Kenzie didn't we agree there will be no late night rants or writing a zine on somebody's comment section. The constant f*ukury is not your concern and you're wearing yourself out here.
Kenzie: You're right. As a senior witch🧙 I'm too busy making hypnotizing potions for the transgender cult anyway. I don't need to be here.
I will go through the article in sequence.
Joseph McConville’s story. Good job finding someone to corroborate the idea of alt-right radicalization. I can find plenty of detransitioners to make the same accusations about the trans community. If you dismiss them, you can’t accept him.
>This change in public perception may be because of the growing claims that falsely link transgender people as perpetrators of mass violence and domestic terrorism.
There has been links to trans identity or ideology in recent shootings. This is a trend that seems to be increasing and is more prominent due to trans-activism. Combine that with popular rhetoric of threatening violence against TERFs, “punch a nazi” (and then label everyone in disagreement as a nazi), the existence of Trantifa, and general hate and death-threats online, it is a fair question to ask: has a certain proportion of the trans community changed public perception for the worse all by themselves?
There is considerable overlap between the trans-activist and progressive anti-capitalist/anti-colonialist/anti-racist communities. They don’t worry about hiding their contempt for the family, for straight white men, the USA, and capitalism. They are happy to agitate for socialism/communism.
>Since 2022, Americans have increased their favorability towards laws limiting protections for trans people and have become less favorable towards policies safeguarding them.
This is a one-sided framing of the issue that fails to provide ANY example and any counterargument. TERFs aren’t alt-right and they vehemently oppose “inclusive” policies that, from their perspective, removes the rights of women to have spaces free from men.
This is a point of ideological conflict: that a male can never be a woman, not ever; that womanhood is not relegated to a costume; that “gender” as a social construct requires biological intervention in case of dysphoria (for “truscum”) or just anyone who wants it.
>But how did Americans get taken to believe this anti-LGBTQ lie?
It’s not “anti-LGBTQ”. It’s a refusal to buy into the lie of “transgenderism”. There are many gay and lesbian people who don’t want the TQ bundled with them. “Trans” isn’t a sexuality, and “Queer” is largely a political identity.
Then the article quotes Thekla Morgenroth who absolutely infuses politics into research:
https://hhs.purdue.edu/directory/thekla-morgenroth/
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7IFk888AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
A good example is: The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary
>[M]any of the people behind the rhetoric today hold powerful positions in the government.
Goes on to mention 3 people: Boebert (rep for Colorado), Dillon (ast. DOJ AG), and Paxton (Texas AG). You want to blame them? Fine, if that’s the case, we can hold the following people accountable for words promoting violence:
Joe Biden "It's time to put Trump in a bullseye."
Kamala Harris "They’re not gonna stop... and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop... and they should not."
Nancy Pelosi "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be."
Chuck Schumer "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."
Ayanna Pressley "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives."
Maxine Waters "We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."; "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."
Dan Goldman "He is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy, and he has to be eliminated."
These are just a few examples. That’s not including the relentless media bias and general ridiculous demonizing language from Democrats.
More from Morgenroth:
>People are very attached to the way that they think about gender because it gives them a sense of certainty—it gives them a sense of who they are and who they’re not
The sex/gender split and subsequent equation of gender with gender identity was a genius rhetorical divide but regardless of whether you want to differentiate biological sex (if admitted as a reality, which not all activists do; Morgenroth seems to have ignored Paglia completely) from experience of one’s sexed identity (“gender”). People are uncomfortable with a movement that pushes them to deny reality and essentially participate in delusion.
>Vandello says many young men fall for anti-trans narratives because they confirm their place of privilege in the world and validate their insecurities
Based on what? This is pure assertion, that men believe that should hold a place of privilege. His research doesn’t support that link. It doesn’t account for status loss in contexts where trans ideology is readily embraced, such as clinical psychology graduate school, where any opponent, not just men, risk such loss. There are also other potential correlational effects. His conclusion is specious at best.
Here’s a nice strawman:
>Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist who’s best known as an outspoken anti-trans thought leader and has said that using someone’s preferred pronouns is the road to authoritarianism.
Peterson didn’t say “using someone’s preferred pronouns is the road to authoritarianism”. He decried legally compelled speech. He specifically called out a Canadian law that effectively made it criminal to NOT use pronouns. Bill C-16 amended Canadian human rights law to include gender identity/expression as protected grounds and then noted that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already interpreted refusal to use preferred pronouns as discriminatory harassment and handed out fines to people.
If the article was honest and in good faith, he would describe Peterson as saying, “legal compelling individuals to use preferred pronouns is the road to authoritarianism.” That’s an accurate representation.
Another anecdote, this time Justin Brown-Ramsey. He didn’t get that opinion from Peterson. He utterly misunderstood the argument. By the way, Peterson’s catalogue of lectures existed on YouTube prior to any of this. He has never said what people accuse him of saying.
>“Social media companies are feeding people more extreme content, more emotional content,” Vandello says. He explained that emotionality is what has made the online alt-right successful at manipulating users against transgender people.
This is true, and it applies to the communists and trans activists. It applies to any fringe ideology.
>Siteman agrees: “ It’s always framed about fear, anger, and just some sense of belonging.”
The lack of awareness here is astounding. This is what many fringe movements are based on. Yes, some of the alt-right are about this, and so some people in street gangs, trans movements, antifa, political groups, racial groups like the KKK and BLM, etc, etc.
And here we go… the underlying political statement:
>“That trajectory is really just me learning, ‘Why should I be at odds with a trans person if both of us work crappy jobs and can’t pay our bills?’ Obviously, that’s not who I should be angry at, but it took a while to get around to that,” Brown-Ramsey says.
“Don’t be mad at trans people, hate the capitalists! Hate the country! Hate your family! Us reds will embrace you!”
That’s what makes this article utterly garbage.
lol you're full of it.
The Minneapolis shooter wasn't trans, neither was the Charlie Kirk shooter. The disinfo campaign is crazy, even this article calls the Minneapolis shooter trans. The hell?