Honestly a lot of it is just that trans people entered the popular consciousness and as the conversation started becoming mainstream a bunch of the already shit folks decided to capitalize on the deficit of people’s understanding on the topic to smear and discredit progressive spaces as a whole.
It’s all very vibes based on their side. They took a topic that has a lot of nuance and flattened it to take advantage of a view of the world that invents problems that feel true.
Like “There are trans rapists in women’s prisons”… Out of the current 5000 trans people incarcerated in the US only 15 of them are currently in prisons that match their gender identity. The transition requirements are so high that there is no guarantee that being on estrogen for 10 years, full sterilization and bottom surgery is enough for a trans woman to meet the requirements.
Or
“Our lost lesbian sisters are getting sterilized in mass transitions to become trans men”… When hysterectomy isn’t even a common gender affirming choice. Testosterone tends to halt menses so a lot of the time trans guys who want biological kids particularly can and do keep the bits and detransition (which just means a change in transition status not a full conversion to cisness) temporarily to meet that life goal if they see fit. Basically having fertility is a matter of going of testosterone for a couple of months.
But who is going to actually check this stuff. They know people won’t.
it’s mostly that it is social wedge issue that drives up ratings, outrage, and politicians can grandstand about it. And make up crazy bullshit about kids being forced to transition by evil doctors or something.
and therefore we can ignore real issues in the country while the media/pols rant on about total nonsense that affects hardly anyone and mostly isn’t real or relevant to trans people.
The transition requirements are so high
what are the requirements?
Honestly depends on your state and institution and overall is incredibly vibes based. Like depending on the state the system might be on the hook to allow a bottom surgery… But whether or not you “fit the requirements” won’t be determined until after the fact. If the people running the system are anti-trans you will be lucky as a post op trans person to be allowed horomones at all. There’s documented situations of trans women basically entering a sort of menopausal state and having their horomones witheld indefinitely by wardens basically because there isn’t a lot of oversight or consequences for doing so.
It’s also taken as kind of a given that sexual assault of trans people is just a thing that is accepted as a cost of doing business. This is something actually that Trans men stuck in women’s prisons also report as a common experience. The system as it is designed raises the risk for a lot of trans women in prisons seeking transition because if you get bottom surgery and you are denied transfer your sexual assault chances skyrocket to “expectedly matter of course” .
So while the 15 people who have made it all are fully medically transitioned, fully sterilized and been on hrt for longer than the required time for athletes the answer regarding requirements is generally “at the pleasure of the administrations in question which is most often not at all”
Oh man, I’d never even considered the fact that all these supposed “male rapists in female prisons” have had bottom surgery.
Like, what man cares so much about being able to rape women that he gets his dick cut off? That’s so much easier to believe than the idea that trans women actually are what they say they are (i.e. they are trans women, not men with a fetish or whatever other grossness)?
After damn near a decade of discourse with cis people I think I have an insight into the problem.
We as trans people assume cis people have an internalized gender that matches their sex… But in talking with cis people I actually think it’s something else. I think the vast majority of cis people’s experience of gender only comes from external influences… I have met cis people who recognize what we’re talking about when I talk about this sort of internal compass that sends feedback completely isolate of any social influence but like it’s actually rare.
So we are in the unfortunate position of having to explain an internally experienced phenomenon that cis folk literally do not experience to a bunch of skeptical people who’s entire experience of gender is performance based… So they fill in the gaps with motives that makes sense to them that involve the nessisary involvement of some kind of external social or stimuli because they cannot conceptualize anything different while we have to render the problem using analogs cis people are likely to understand… But are also based off of externalized influences and thus completly imperfect.
I don’t think it’s that they don’t have an internal gender identity, I think it’s just hard for them to tell. Ask a cis woman how she knows she’s a woman and she’ll probably say something like “because I have a woman’s body”, but I don’t think that means she has no internal sense of her gender, it just means it takes a lot more introspection and nuance than she’s spent to get to that than it takes to go “boobs, check, vulva, check, I’m good”. She doesn’t have a disconnect, so she’s never had to really consider it, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have it.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think research indicates we aren’t special because we have a gender identity, but because of what it is.
I don’t know who (Abigail Thorn? Contrapoints? …Vihart?) but someone was talking about how sometimes that’s the case, that they really don’t have a sense of their own gender. That they’re “really” something like agender, but that it’s just too much of a bother to worry about correcting people. But there are also plenty of cis people deeply invested in their own gender, who really do have toes to it and identify as that gender, but when you ask them how they know, they put it all on external things rather than internal.
That’s not quite what I mean. A lot of people basically just equate sex and gender as the same thing.
But what I am talking about is demonstratable this way : ask this to a cis person pick a sex characteristic, any physically dimorphic sex characteristic. How does the existence of having that physical characteristic make you feel? Your answer cannot include how comfortable physically the ownership of that characteristic (like if we’re talking something that causes physical discomfort like period cramps as example) is or an evaluation of how attractive or not to other people that characteristic is. It is not an evaluation of the individual nature of how yours compares to other people’s. The rubric is just its pure existence of that characteristic in isolation. What emotional reaction do you have to possessing that characteristic?
Cis people generally return an answer that those sex characteristics don’t really cause them to feel anything. They just have those things. Like they might have learned reactions to their characteristics if they don’t fit a beauty standard and are made to feel deficient by other people… But otherwise on their own those things don’t make them feel either happy or sad . The possession of those features have a neutral value.
They also don’t seem particularly attached to their innate characteristics in theoreticals. Ask them what they think it would be like to swap to the opposite sex phenotype and they don’t tend to report back any anticipated bodily sense of horror or loss. Most often they just display curiosity and a tabulation of things they would be able to suddenly experience or would change. More often than not their primary initial concern would be whether they would be attractive or not.
I think what makes most people cis is actually a lack of ability to care about which body phenotype they are riding around in. Their sex characteristics don’t actually mean anything to them on their own.
Change the question slightly and they think about it differently. Ask them how they’d feel if they lost some of those features. A cis man with hairy arms and chest probably doesn’t say he feels a great joy when he thinks about them, but would probably feel some real discomfort if he couldn’t grow body hair any more. They assign a neutral value to them because they consider it “default”. And of course not everyone feels the same way about these things, cis or trans, but I think most cis people really do value their genders and sexed bodies because those things match, even if they wouldn’t say so.
Either way, I think we’re both speaking anecdotally and I don’t plan to go look for the research on gender identity right now.
That’s the thing, I am not so sure. Like ask for what the reason behind that discomfort would be and a lot of the time it still has it’s root in other people’s perceptions. There’s a lot of muddling factors, internalized misogyny and the need to project “manliness” as a distinct comparison is still basically an external training to feel that way about that feature. Things like fatphobia work off of external training to social body standards and a lot of that dynamic is at play in cis spaces…but doesn’t well graft one to one with the trans experience of dysphoria /euphoria.
It’s a difficult knot to dig down to it’s source but I think it’s a way more of a distinct difference of operations than people think hence why it’s so gorram hard to explain to most people what is going on.
To confirm this would require a bunch of study which isn’t really happening because cis people don’t really deeply examine or know where to start even into exploring what being cis actually is. They don’t really have to think about it. The only reason we trans folks have to do so much introspection is because we can’t just be left to do what we need. We have to quantify it and examine it to self advocate… And then when cis people render our situation back to us in completly dismissive nonsensical ways it prompts one to wonder. Maybe there really is a physical difference, some chunk of development that created an inflexibility where normally there is flexibility. A trans brain might exist in a subset of cis people and align internally (I have definitely met folk like that) but unless cis people talk to each other we might not be able to confirm.
I don’t know about that. I think the reasons they give would sound external like that, but they can sound that way from a trans person too. And ask about something more significant, like
what if you didn’t have a penis anymore? Say you could still have sex and babies, but didn’t have a penis. How would you feel about that?
A cis man would be pretty affected by that, and he wouldn’t attribute that to societal pressure. I contend that at the very least there is some misattribution when most cis people put the entirety of their gender identity on external factors.
Either way, I fully agree that it’s something that research can answer in a way discussion never will. Whether and to what degree that research has happened, is happening, or ever will happen I can’t say.
Part of the problem with arguments like that is if you say ‘trans women are not widely represented in women’s jails’ they can say ‘yeah but the left want to change that with self ID and all the other things they push for’ so really the only point you’ve made in their mind is that its good the people pushing these things aren’t in power.
Surely no one can deny that the lefts messaging has been that a trans person should be able to enter any gendered space without question? You never see trans advocates say ‘yes creepy men pretending to be women to gain access to female spaces is a legitimate problem which we intend to protect against by…’ they say ‘its not a problem, will never be a problem and anyone who says it might be is evil and stupid and bad’
Everyone knows a lot of men are creepy, everyone knows that there are rapists who if able to get put into a woman’s jail would jump at the chance - if one side is going to pretend these aren’t true simply because it makes the rest of their belief on the issue difficult to explain then that’s not on the normies who don’t accept it without question.
Up until the run up to the election the UK labour party for example pledged self ID legislation would be made law and there was huge outcry from trans advocacy groups when they changed their mind - you can’t argue that something you’re trying to make happen isn’t a problem because it doesn’t yet happen.
You see but here’s where how you’re putting this works together with other things. You are looking at trans people on the whole as a safety issue to the population at large. The framing of trans people on the right always places us as a problem l. That is an outright dehumanizing tactic and the answer is always left kind of purposefully vague because the answer is “we aren’t supposed to exist.”
The outcome of all this discussion is basically to raise the hurdles of being trans in a pubic space. To be frank, they know that basically making life miserable enough for us will solve their “problems” because when life gets too hard and devoid of joy and relief death becomes viable.
So they frame us as a public safety problem, a categorical problem, a mental health problem, a medical problem, a “ruining your fun” problem, a freedom of speech problem because they know every time they do so that you will think of us as a group a little less in terms of being people and a little more as a sacrifice that deserves what we get.
It doesn’t matter that prisons don’t change their design to fit us because as long as we’re the ones getting raped the system is fine.
It doesn’t matter that public toilets don’t change their design to make everyone safer as long as we never go out in public long enough to use one.
It doesn’t matter that basically it only takes six months to dial in what your dosage of hrt and from then on it’s just a prescription like every other you pick up monthly for any other medical condition . As long as we’re interpreted by the system as an ‘undue medical burden’ we can basically just allow stress to ruin our bodies so we die faster and voters can feel like they’ve saved resources.
It doesn’t matter that we have kids of our own because us “not being safe to be around children” means that we are banished from parental and teaching spaces and the child protection services can be empowered to take our children away to raise them “safely” .
The arguements that never frame systemic solutions that include trans people are paving the way for our genocide. They are designed to get you to stop thinking right before you ever consider us worthy of accomodation. You are supposed to look at us as taking YOUR resources away, making YOUR spaces less safe, ruining YOUR culture so that you feel unsafe and attacked even when those things aren’t actually happening. This effect is called creating a “Moral exclusion” and it is the first steps to creating outcast sections of society who you are not supposed to question where they SHOULD exist because you are primed to only think about them as in terms of where they should NOT exist.
There is good reason why we do not soothe your fears about evil creepy cis men in women’s bathrooms. Because it’s bad faith rhetoric designed to give us no recourse to argue that we should have as much a right to be safe. The fact is the numbers are in. In the ten plus years in my city where trans inclusion is the norm there has been no uptick in stalking incidents regarding bathroom use. Just because you are being engineered to feel less safe by politicians doesn’t mean you actually are less safe but you are making US less safe. But that’s not a problem because you aren’t supposed to value our safety or comfort even a little. Your not caring is useful to specific people so they are going to keep training you to do that and to never ask where the trans people went. Because unless you have the misfortune of being one of us or loving one of us enough to care we are just a problem.
You’ve gotten enough good answers that I think it okay to address a tangent.
Things are definitely at the point where christofascists, and other hate driven ideologies are getting louder.
But, and this is vitally important as to why the pushback is making it a matter of public discourse at the level you’re asking about, there’s more allies now than ever.
Be ready for old man talking here, and ignore if not interested. Disclaimer: I have arthritis, and it’s easier to type gay than LGBTQ, so I’ll be using the shorter word for that reason, not as an exclusion.
Back in the seventies and eighties, gay rights was a thing for mostly gay people. Before that it had been gaining minor support, and the eighties were when social restrictions started changing enough that gay people were allowed to have some degree of public awareness in both news and fiction.
I keep bringing it up in various places, but Billy Crystal played the first recurring openly gay character on television. That was in 1977, and ran until 1981. I don’t think it can be said enough how huge that was in bringing awareness of gay people as just people was. That role brought gay into our homes and lives in a way nothing had before.
When something makes a group real to the majority, makes things stop being a dirty secret and just another part of life, you get kids growing up that are more open and accepting. As acceptance grew, so did the amount of people coming out.
As people came out, the straights realized that not only had they always known gay people, but they liked them, and even loved them for years, sometimes a lifetime. When that starts spreading, you have more people that are willing to support gay people and their rights as fellow humans.
Instead of being pariahs, gay people became part of life, part of our hearts. Eventually, more and more people that didn’t have direct relationships with someone gay became allies, supporters.
However, the more gay people became a part of life, the more noise bigots made, in their own homes and in public. So, instead of it being a dirty little secret nobody talked about, that way of thinking got nastier and louder. Before, it wasn’t something everyone would even know about until much later in life, but as the gay rights movement in the seventies started building up steam, you had more hatred being spewed as well. There had been before, but it was more likely to be handled with dismissive or contemptuous remarks rather than outright venom and bile in the open.
Now, us folks that were kids during the late 70s and early 80s didn’t just accept gay folks. We would often defy elders that opposed gay rights or bad talked them. As time passed and we grew up, the segment of that generation that became allies tended to be more and more vocal in our support. By the nineties, my generation was moving into adulthood and willing to vote our conscience. We were willing to put our time and money into the cause. Sometimes, we’d put our bodies on the line when things got ugly.
Move forward to now, and you’ve got two or three generations actively and loudly opposing the bigots, and not just the gay people. The bigots are smaller in number, but have been pandered to by political groups around the world, so have more weight than their numbers should give them.
Mind you, the bigots also include people of every generation too. Don’t imagine that there aren’t kids even that spew the same kind of nastiness that’s been used since before the 70s. But there’s more in direct opposition to them, and plenty of passive dismissal of the bigotry. Bigotry is not a relic of the past, nor is it limited to older generations; some of the loudest and most obnoxious hatred gets spewed by younger adherents. But the seeming percentage of hate is lower in younger generations, and the seeming percentage of outright support is higher.
That puts us in the situation we’re in, where hate has a bigger voice than it should, and love/acceptance has to shout louder to oppose it.
A little late-80s perspective: when I was growing up, “gay” was an insult we’d call eachother jokingly. Nobody “was gay” because that’s a (light, funny) slur. Hell, it wasn’t till I was 28 I realized it didn’t “have a dating-girls phase” that I never grew out of, I was just bi.
The homophobia is still pretty deeply ingrained even in people who aren’t that old and are really trying. I can only imagine how bad it is for those who aren’t and don’t.
I still have a hard time digesting “gay” as a slur. We simply didn’t use it that way, ever. F@g could go both ways and my gay friends happily slung it at each other. An attempt to take the word back from the haters I guess. At least that word was sometimes used as a real insult.
Things are definitely at the point where christofascists, and other hate driven ideologies are getting louder.
Good time to bring up how their numbers are drastically thinning. This is a big win and part of why we need to fight them hard as their fear of marginalization causes them to switch from dirty tactics to outright fascism to cling to power.
Survey: White Christianity is declining while the religiously unaffiliated keep growing
That bump in 2020 is kind of interesting. The reason seems obvious, but correlation does not equal causation and all that. It does make me wonder if a big chunk of people claiming to be unaffilated are doing so because they think it’s the correct answer to give, not because it’s actually true. (My theory being that the pandemic made them decide they better stop denying Jesus for awhile or whatever)
Religion is an opiate. The best way to reduce its abuse is by addressing the underlying pain. When people conditions get worse they look to things to help numb the pain.
they are popular because they provide simple answers to complex issues.
People like that. Esp younger folks.
Just like the alt right is so popular with them, because it gives them simple answers.
Left doesn’t have simple answers. Wants you to listen to a college course type of lecture on every issue… people don’t care about that. They want a simple soundbyte they can emotionally respond to. Left is very poor at that… there are some examples, but they dont’ really get much traction outside of leftist/socialist circles.
Also you can spend thirty seconds as a right winger and have them all tell you that you’re great, important, clever, worthwhile, and all those things – spend twenty years dedicating your adult life to leftwing values and you’ll still get spat on by your political peers because your opinion on some obscure issue is 2% different to theirs.
We’re of an age, and I too try to bring perspective to younger readers. All true, I was there, I saw it.
Hey.
I really enjoyed your comment. It’s very well written. Nice job. That’s it; that’s all.
Thanks :)
it really feels like it’s at a boiling point though right now. World governments have all shifted more to the right on average than they have in the last 80 years.
Because the right offers people stability, authority, etc. People like that.
They don’t like left because it’s too vague and complicated to understand their points of view.
Trans people = bad is a lot easier for the average person to understand, than explaining to them what a transsexual person is and isn’t, and the various types of trans/queer identities. That shit requires a dictionary and hours of time to understand.
governments have all shifted more to the right on average
it appears to be the case. though afaict none of it appears to be organic.
There’s been some surprising upsets recently though! We were all bracing for a fashy-wave but lots of progressive leaders have been elected lately, after it looked like their hardline iron-fist nationlist counterparts were gaining ground.
By no means a reason to take it easy and give them a breather, oh no! But we should definitely acknowledge every little bit of dystopia we manage to collectively avert. Even if only a little.
the fashy-waves were manifested by centrists leaders that we learned were very fashy-friendly after those upsets made those leaders intrigue with the far right; as is happening in france with macron; or clinging on to conservative policies; as is happening in the uk with starmer.
the people voted left; but all of the leaders went right anyways.
harris and trump are doing something similar with harris ignoring the will of 68% of americans when with comes to the genocide and trump with project 2025.
Michael Parenti addresses this well:
Class gets its significance from the process of surplus extraction. The relationship between worker and owner is essentially an exploitative one, involving the constant transfer of wealth from those who labor (but do not own) to those who own (but do not labor). This is how some people get richer and richer without working, or with doing only a fraction of the work that enriches them, while others toil hard for an entire lifetime only to end up with little or nothing.
Those who occupy the higher circles of wealth and power are keenly aware of their own interests. While they sometimes seriously differ among themselves on specific issues, they exhibit an impressive cohesion when it comes to protecting the existing class system of corporate power, property, privilege, and profit. At the same time, they are careful to discourage public awareness of the class power they wield. They avoid the C-word, especially when used in reference to themselves as in "owning class;’ "upper class;’ or “moneyed class.” And they like it least when the politically active elements of the owning class are called the “ruling class.” The ruling class in this country has labored long to leave the impression that it does not exist, does not own the lion’s share of just about everything, and does not exercise a vastly disproportionate influence over the affairs of the nation. Such precautions are themselves symptomatic of an acute awareness of class interests.
Yet ruling class members are far from invisible. Their command positions in the corporate world, their control of international finance and industry, their ownership of the major media, and their influence over state power and the political process are all matters of public record- to some limited degree. While it would seem a simple matter to apply the C-word to those who occupy the highest reaches of the C-world, the dominant class ideology dismisses any such application as a lapse into “conspiracy theory.” The C-word is also taboo when applied to the millions who do the work of society for what are usually niggardly wages, the “working class,” a term that is dismissed as Marxist jargon. And it is verboten to refer to the "exploiting and exploited classes;’ for then one is talking about the very essence of the capitalist system, the accumulation of corporate wealth at the expense of labor.
The C-word is an acceptable term when prefaced with the soothing adjective “middle.” Every politician, publicist, and pundit will rhapsodize about the middle class, the object of their heartfelt concern. The much admired and much pitied middle class is supposedly inhabited by virtuously self-sufficient people, free from the presumed profligacy of those who inhabit the lower rungs of society. By including almost everyone, “middle class” serves as a conveniently amorphous concept that masks the exploitation and inequality of social relations. It is a class label that denies the actuality of class power.
The C-word is allowable when applied to one other group, the desperate lot who live on the lowest rung of society, who get the least of everything while being regularly blamed for their own victimization: the “underclass.” References to the presumed deficiencies of underclass people are acceptable because they reinforce the existing social hierarchy and justify the unjust treatment accorded society’s most vulnerable elements.
Seizing upon anything but class, leftists today have developed an array of identity groups centering around ethnic, gender, cultural, and life-style issues. These groups treat their respective grievances as something apart from class struggle, and have almost nothing to say about the increasingly harsh politico-economic class injustices perpetrated against us all. Identity groups tend to emphasize their distinctiveness and their separateness from each other, thus fractionalizing the protest movement. To be sure, they have important contributions to make around issues that are particularly salient to them, issues often overlooked by others. But they also should not downplay their common interests, nor overlook the common class enemy they face. The forces that impose class injustice and economic exploitation are the same ones that propagate racism, sexism, militarism, ecological devastation, homophobia, xenophobia, and the like.
Cultural progressivism has been used as a shield to implement bad economic policies.
Edit for those who do not understand:
It’s a valid question—progress sometimes feels like it’s being reversed. Conversations around identity have become louder, but also more polarised. On a different note, if anyone here is working on visuals for advocacy or content, tools to quitar marca de agua online gratis can really help clean up images before sharing.
Have you seen the Russian psy ops instructions?
Got a manual?
these things come up whenever the right wing needs a distraction. they have to keep finding new groups to blame society’s ills on, so that conservatives don’t realize it’s their politics that lead to those.
whenever a group inevitably becomes too accepted (or at least not feared enough) to be a distraction, they move on to the next group. sometimes they bring an oldie back because that’s fashion for you.
If that were the case, the Dems could just stand up and say, “You and I both know that those aren’t even issues. They are open and shut case of right vs. wrong. Here are the issues that actually matter to people on both sides of the political spectrum:
- stop sending our tax money to bomb people
- give us Single Payer
- break up monopolies
- make it possible to afford a home
- make college education free
- increase wages
- help labor
- etc”
and they would win in a landslide (if elections were even fair in the first place).
But they don’t because they know that it allows them to give the donors (who are considered PEOPLE with ability to funnel ANY amount of money to a candidate because of Citizens United) what they want (more money) while doing ANYTHING to distinguish themselves to their sheeplike electorate.
There are 8 billion people in the world. If 10,000 people on Xwitter are upset about something, it’s statistically insignificant.
This is what pisses me off about people that go on about I’m sick of this woke society or sick of these “crazy trans people”, or whatever else.
And I’m like brother I do not care and most people do not care. Let people do what they want it ain’t that deep. I’m off the view if it doesn’t negatively affect me then what business is it of mine how people live their life. The things they get outraged over is just from some minority of loons on Twitter and not everybody.
In my 36yr life it isn’t any greater or lesser of a concern than it has been before, though I’m quick to think of the euphamism-treadmill as being constantly turning.
—To me It seems like sexuality is easy-pickings for politicians that don’t want to write legislation that benefits the lower-classes. It’s a big part of the “circuses” metaphor in the phrase “bread and circuses.”
Not that old yet.
Right, fuck, my bad. Welp, yeah, I’m sorry to say but I think it has more to do with your progression into understanding more about the world and perspectives outside of your own experience. In no way am I trying to be mean or discouraging. You asked a really valid and important question, and i guess i impulsively reacted and forgot there are people less jaded than me. For what it’s worth i admire you and hope that learning some people are STILL stuck being shitty doesn’t make you think everyone sucks. And I’m proud to learn that another person younger than me just ‘gets it’ that people are people deserving of love and respect regardless of bullshit like who they themselves love.
You flatter me mate…internet blushing
The US isn’t any more concerned about sexual orientation now than any point in the past. Back in colonial times, it wouldn’t have been safe to be anything other than straight with all the hyper religious colonists. They were even forcing their gender conformity and the straight sexual orientation on the Native Americans. Baron Friedrich von Steuben got a pass for being gay, probably because he was the one in charge of training the troops for Washington. 100 years ago, you could be killed on the street for being anything other than straight or denied jobs. The Lavender scare of the mid century brought this more to light. The AIDS crisis that started in the 80s and bled through into the 90s and 2000s as new medicines were being invented, further brought negative light to sexual orientations outside of straight. The cause of all of this attention to sexual orientation has been the religions brought over by colonists.
In recent years, sexual orientations outside of straight are finally being seen in a positive light with Lawrence v TX (2003) legalizing same-sex relationships and Hodges v Obergefell (2015) legalizing same-sex marriages. In Bostock v Clayton County (2020) legal protections against job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity were finally put into place over 70 years after the start of the Lavender Scare.
The attention to sexual orientation has always been part of North American history. It has just changed from acceptance with the Native American peoples to hate, death, and intolerance under the colonists, to a more accepting present day. With some of the positive news in recent years, it can be easy to forget (if you’re surrounded by progressives in a blue state) that the hate of sexuality injected into North America in the 15th Century still has hold over large portions of the population today.
The forces of reaction never went away, they just weren’t as narketable for a few years, there. Companies are trying to increase their marketshare among bigots while also not alienating the people that don’t hate gay people. So you get pinkwashed corporate logos and genocide along with cancelled gay shows and an increase in false history nouveau Westerns.
deleted by creator
exactly. and bigotry isn’t limited to sex or race stuff.
people pretty much hate anyone who is different than them. even so called progressive inclusive hippie types… will express crazy bigotry towards groups they don’t like based on crude stereotypes that are largely not true.
our brains love to generalize. They don’t like treating people who are different than us as worth our acknowledgement and esteem.
Family sizes are down, birth rates are now 1 per family, maybe 2 children.
This is due to many reasons but mostly
- Hormonal birth control
- Women entering the mainstream labor pool
Basically, there are better things for women to do then just have kids. This has a been a huge force multiplier for the economy
However, this means that family lines, genetic lineage, family names, dynasties… All rests on the shoulders of a single child. That’s a lot of pressure.
When you had 10 children, and one or two were “special”, it may have caused some drama but the lineage was still being secured by the other 8.
When there is only one child who then chooses a alternative life style that does not reproduce that means the END of a genetic line, the end of a name, the end of a dynasty, the end of a family. These things are hugely important to people.
I think people are more angry about sexual choices now, because they’re more important, because people have less children.
Do your research. Birth rate declines as cultural stability and wealth increase. Period.
Birth rate declines as cultural stability and wealth increase. Period.
Does this mean that birth control doesn’t prevent teenage pregnancy?
CIA and maybe collaboration with Mossad. Pink and rainbow washing is used to justify regime change operations abroad.
