Log in |
Register
> Is there a point when you guys declare victory? There's practically no trans athletes, half the states seemed to end gender affirming care, trans people lost their protected status, they're basically written out of mainstream media and movies. Hell I live in LA and a bunch of formerly woke hospitals jettisoned their trans patients so they wouldn't lose out on federal funding. >
Isn't the conservative side of this debate just that we want to agree to keep the status quo of the early 2000's? Where some men dressed up as women from time to time and society largely let them get on with it.
This conversation, in which progressives want to go beyond that state of affairs and oblige everyone else to not just politely let people live their own lives but to be legally obliged join in with pretending that men can actually turn into women, is one that only started in mainstream discourse sometime in the early 2010s. We are only talking about trans people at all because progressives came up with a bunch of novel new ideas for laws and rights that they wanted society to adopt (and we're talking about things like legally recognised self-ID, experimental surgery on minors, and men in the women's weightlifting).
By and large conservatives are just happy with those ideas being shelved as odd ones that don't make a lot of sense and which can come off of the list of things that are up for serious legislative debate (no extermination program required!).
The problem with progressive narratives is that there's a tendency to try to frame that as a rollback of longstanding rights or as an undoing of some state of affairs that has persisted since time immemorial. It isn't. The conversation ends when the weird ideas of the early 2010s come off the table and we go back to the very recent and long-settled position that "trans athletes" and experimental "gender-affirming care" on children are strange new ideas that society doesn't hold popular support for.
This conversation is only happening because progressives wants to engage in social engineering experiments and push for novel new rights/laws. Everyone else is happy to stop having it just as soon as those ideas are taken off the table. That's the only victory anyone is looking for.
I live in Los Angeles and I'm definitely a leftist/libertarian and I don't see anyone on my side bringing up trans rights. Certainly not to the extent that they did pre-Covid.
It's a distraction. That's why I brought up the economy, energy prices, housing, inflation, foreign policy, and the unbelievable humiliation of the Iran war. I'd love to speak about those things.
I mean, Trump literally just said - on record - that we have the best economy ever and $21 Trillion dollars is "pouring in." Want to engage on that?
It's obvious that the trans issue gets people emotional for many reasons. It's been enormously useful for the conservative side. And if your stated goals are that trans people are removed from popular culture and special protections are taken away, then yeah - it's honestly one of the few "victories" that the Trump admin can claim. They're a powerless group, and fighting them doesn't conflict with the goals of global capital growth. It's more useful than DEI and potentially migrants as a scare tactic, because the GOP would love to keep the share of black and Latino voters that they gained in the last cycle.
The trans issue is back in the news because the midterms are happening. It's reassuring to see that it's not working like before. I think the WNBA is the best example. Back when that stupidity was happening, I knew that the WNBA leadership simply needed to wait a month. The people who got worked up about non-existent trans athletes basically have the attention span of children. They need a new rage token every few weeks, and the world has already moved on from Royce White and whoever the other clown is.
You guys can pop off about trans people all you want, I'm not gonna argue about it. As I've said, it's ironic given that a facebook post of nearly any muscular woman on this site will garner hundreds of anti-trans comments, simply proving that most idiots out there think that most of the women we love already "look like men." But go ahead and do your thing.
Go ahead, read the comments written about our queen Vladislava. And consider that she's one of the most stereotypically feminine women in the scene:
https://www.dailymail.com/lifestyle/article-1...
@Muscles_Toez
If we're talking politics, then using "TDS" is such a bold move in September 2026.
Because we're not "talking politics". You're doing your usual thing of posting an unrelated, overly verbose anti-Trump screed, hyper-focusing on short-term material results to the exclusion of everything else, mostly ignoring what others say and carrying on to your next soapbox. Also, what's so special about September 2026?
Believe me bro, there's nothing strange about hating the world's most famously hateful man.
In LA and assorted TDS-afflicted circles, sure. Others have a more nuanced, less viscerally knee-jerk view.
You know what was beautiful? Every year I go to the Olympia in Vegas, and I always have to see many ...umm, individuals... wearing Trump gear. Regardless of my thoughts on him, it's just really pathetic to wear a bunch of merch for any politician. Sad, really.
And that is why you will continue to impotently roil and rage and foam at the mouth. You just cannot comprehend what goes beyond the material and what an individual like Trump represents in this particular juncture. I also don't wear politicians' merch (or any merch, for that matter), but the fact that, after almost ten years, you still don't understand that Trump and what he represents goes beyond politics is more an indictment on you than on those "chumps" you sneer at. Which brings us to:
But this year - I spent two days working on that expo floor and I saw ZERO Trump gear. No hats, no shirts. No funny graphics of his fat ass morphed into Rambo or whatever. Every single person who isn't a billionaire or an absolute moron knows that he's a senile failure.
I don't suppose you're assuming I'm a millionaire, so thank you for implying I'm an absolute moron in your anecdote. Par for the course for the TDS-afflicted, but still cute.
I live in Los Angeles and I'm definitely a leftist/libertarian and I don't see anyone on my side bringing up trans rights
Thank you for yet another anecdotal tale. Try using less outdated binaries in your worldview, and you might start making actual points with them.
The trans issue is back in the news because the midterms are happening.
You really don't get it, do you? You've either got cause and effect all mixed up, or you do it intentionally because seeing the world in more shades makes your head hurt.
That's why I brought up the economy, energy prices, housing, inflation, foreign policy, and the unbelievable humiliation of the Iran war. I'd love to speak about those things.
Maybe create a new thread, then? Otherwise, it's a bit of a "doth protest too much" case, if you just keep complaining that people are talking about Y when you want to talk about X in a discussion about Z.
it's ironic given that a facebook post of nearly any muscular woman on this site will garner hundreds of anti-trans comments, simply proving that most idiots out there think that most of the women we love already "look like men." But go ahead and do your thing.
You keep harping on about this, but what's the point you're trying to make? Is it another one of your "them vs us" tirades? An attempt at drawing some sort of parallelism? Are you trying to guilt-trip someone because of their wrongthink by flimsy association? And, most importantly, what would Sydney Sweeney do?
@byrdcf
This is why I keep bringing up extermination: it's the only practical way to arrive at this resolution you desire.
Again, no extermination was necessary up until now, nor will it be. Just give it a rest, man.
^^ Real quick, I reject the idea of "TDS" because Donald Trump has a legendarily low approval rating, even with the heavy support of conservative media. If TDS is real, then a lot of former Trump voters have it too. Here's a list of the lowest approval Presidents. Not all GOP to be fair. You don't hear much of "Carter Derangement Syndrome" though.
And what do I want?
1) All of us to focus on the billionaire & global capital class as the prime source of instability and lifestyle decline in he West.
2) Realize that Sydney Sweeney's advertisements and the sports betting industry behind them, are a strong part of this billionaire & global capital class. Her nudity is a distraction and an unimportant part of the issue. That's by design.
3) Have our own opinions and religious beliefs but stop taking the culture war bait sold to you by bad actors
4) Vote for Democrats in this midterm election because they demonstrably deliver better for the working and middle class. Maintain skepticism and put constant pressure on them, as there are plenty of corrupt and inept Democrats out there too. But given the two party system, they're logically the better choice unless you are a heavily invested multi-millionaire and only concerned with the growth of your personal wealth.
5) If you're a conservative and criticizing trans women, realize that many (possibly most) conservatives think that our "girls with muscle" are trans and they're criticizing them in the exact same way. So maybe that gives you some empathy for their situation. If you actually spoke with competitive female bodybuilders, you'd know that they get misgendered all the time and it's painful.
^^
5) If you're a conservative and criticizing trans women, realize that...
This is interesting. What do you actually mean by this? What do you mean when you say "criticizing" here?
Am I criticizing trans women when I say that I don't think that biological men should be allowed to compete in the women's weightlifting and the rules of competition shouldn't allow it?
What about when I say that I don't think that anybody should be legally compelled to adopt pronouns demanded by another, whatever they may be? Same question.
Are those things criticising? Would you accept that they are rational policy positions that you simply don't share and reserve your upset about "criticism" for some other kind of statements (and if so what)? Or do you see those statements as "criticism" that you think it is somehow wrong to even say?
I am genuinely interested to understand which parts of this conversation you think it is legitimate for people to have, so this is a genuine good faith enquiry.
This is interesting. What do you actually mean by this? What do you mean when you say "criticizing" here?
Am I criticizing trans women when I say that I don't think that biological men should be allowed to compete in the women's weightlifting and the rules of competition shouldn't allow it?
What about when I say that I don't think that anybody should be legally compelled to adopt pronouns demanded by another, whatever they may be? Same question.
Are those things criticising? Would you accept that they are rational policy positions that you simply don't share and reserve your upset about "criticism" for some other kind of statements (and if so what)? Or do you see those statements as "criticism" that you think it is somehow wrong to even say?
I am genuinely interested to understand which parts of this conversation you think it is legitimate for people to have, so this is a genuine good faith enquiry.
Fair question. And I don't want to enter my 100th GWM debate on trans people, so I'm only answering your question and I'm not getting into my take on trans rights and whatnot. My main point in regards to this whole debate is that trans rights are a tiny issue for a vanishingly small minority which is weaponized so that the Epstein class and the current GOP government can further destroy our economy and enrich themselves. You can feel however you want about it, but it's foolish to give it more power than it has.
I'd say criticism is the general attitude of being disrespectful to them, calling them mentally ill, calling them "men in a dress." Looking down upon them as a group. Trying to invalidate their presence in society.
How does this relate to buff women? It's worth nothing that a huge swatch of society looks at Hunter Henderson or Chelsea Dion or Andrew Shaw and thinks "look at that freaking tr-nny." These women get misgendered all the time, and probably quite a bit more than the usual trans person who's putting effort into their look.
And that's not crazy. It's very possible that I've met trans female bodybuilders at the Olympia. I don't think that I have, but there would be absolutely no way to tell. Professional FBB's have deep voices and thick skin and beard stubble and receding hairlines. I've met trans women who are WAY more traditionally feminine than female bodybuilders. How the hell would I ever know?
My main point in regards to this whole debate is that trans rights are a tiny issue for a vanishingly small minority which is weaponized so that the Epstein class and the current GOP government can further destroy our economy and enrich themselves.
See this is the bit of your opinion that I just cannot understand. I genuinely do not see that it makes logical sense.
We don't talk about trans rights because they've been "weaponized by a billionaire class", we talk about them because progressive groups have actively tried to introduce new laws that put into place social policies that the vast majority of the population don't agree with.
Jeffrey Epstein didn't do that. Donald Trump didn't do that. It was the college educated social engineers who vote Democrat every time who pushed for this stuff and now cannot let it go. Billionaires didn't push them into doing it, it was all their own idea.
If you worry that the niche obsession with novel new 'trans rights' that a small but vocal segment of Western progressive movements cannot let go of is sucking attention away from more important issues, then why not tell them to let it go?
Surely that would make more sense than trying to conceptualise the general public's lack of enthusiasm for various new rules that effectively ask them to pretend to believe that men can turn into women to avoid offending those who have bought into that concept as being some kind of billionaire plot?
To my mind the general public are even less likely to be convinced of the idea that they only object to biological men competing in the women's weightlifting because billionaires have engaged in a psyop to hijack their thoughts, than they are to agree with the original proposition that, say, men should be allowed to compete in women's athletics at all.
Put it this way: do you genuinely believe that the principle reason that the majority of the public object to men in the women's weightlifting and keep saying so whenever progressives try to push the idea is because billionaires told them to object to it, rather than because they consider it to be genuinely unfair?
How does this relate to buff women? It's worth nothing that a huge swatch of society looks at Hunter Henderson or Chelsea Dion or Andrew Shaw and thinks "look at that freaking tr-nny." These women get misgendered all the time, and probably quite a bit more than the usual trans person who's putting effort into their look.
And that's not crazy. It's very possible that I've met trans female bodybuilders at the Olympia. I don't think that I have, but there would be absolutely no way to tell. Professional FBB's have deep voices and thick skin and beard stubble and receding hairlines. I've met trans women who are WAY more traditionally feminine than female bodybuilders. How the hell would I ever know?
If it is now considered fine and appropriate to hurl slurs at transgender people and drag queens, then hurling slurs at muscle girls is a predictable and obvious outcome. Treating "those bad people" like garbage leads to everyone treating each other like garbage. Especially when there are no consequences.
I was prepared to sit down and write some type of response to the posts that came after mine, but I don't really see a need to reinvent the wheel. What was posted above is more or less exactly what I would have said. The rest of it was just a bunch of anti-trump blather.
This idea that trans rights are somehow equivalent to civil rights is also a new idea. A person's sex, race and in some cases disability is in their DNA. Sexual preference is not something that can be discerned from a strand of their hair. But if we believe in the science of evolution, we know heterosexual to be a default.
The fact that the last two statements are true doesn't mean I must pursue the extinction of a trans person any more than someone who is genetically tall... but I am also not required to use 8 ft doors in new construction, and especially not those who simply identify as tall.