The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
Research the Frankfurt School.
The playbook is literally out there for anyone to read.
It is a literal conspiracy, and it’s not a theory. Some other tactics have been added to it in-addenda, after world war 2.
The destruction of the independent family unit is the highest priority, because the nuclear family as the basis for society foments resistance against agendas from the Marxist state, which are often contrary to the interests typically
How does gay marriage fit into your Marxist conspiracy theories?
Nope. First off that’s not analogous.
A more appropriate equivocation would be how many gay people wish society had been accepting of homosexuality in the past
vs
How many trans people wish people had been more accepting of those who were transgender in the past?
Second they can’t say that right now because 100’s of insane anti trans bills are being passed right now.
That's not a valid analogy for my position because I'm not arguing against acceptance of people who identify as transgender. I'm arguing against medical interventions that result in young people becoming sterilized.
Also I feel that accepting transgender people has to be balanced with real concerns about protecting women's spaces.
These are the two issues the majority of the so-called "anti-trans" bills are focused on, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong).
Federal gay marriage rights should have been achieved with constitutional amendments not with a SCOTUS decision, because given 200 years without them, they are clearly not a constitutional right no matter your opinion on how good it is for gays to be allowed to marry.
And btw gay marriage wasn't a constitutional right almost anywhere: normal countries legislated in favor of gay marriage, like many american states were doing. Some countries then amended constitution to solidify those rights.
What's marxist is the complete disregard for the rule of law and the abuse of judicial power to push something, no matter how reasonable. Because it opens the doors for other marxist intentions, far more nefarious ones, when a leftist SCOTUS is at hand.
In general under marxist lens the rule of law is irrelevant, all that matters is achieving the revolution (or parts of it, including stopping the oppressor from oppressing and other marxists frameworks).
Accepting something desirable has to be achieved within the rules is fundamentally against marxism. Marxists claim the system is rigged in favour of the oppressor so the system is worthless.
Might be the first time I've seen a libertarian go hard against gay marriage, tbh.
Might be the first time I've seen a libertarian go hard against gay marriage, tbh.
I am not against gay marriage lol, but i am not surprised you can't understand what i wrote. I am against SCOTUS being allowed to invent rights., including rights i agree with.
If SCOTUS went full libertarian inventing a right to body autonomy in the 14a that makes vaccine mandates and drug laws unconstitutional, i would disagree with that decision as well.
The outcome isn't everything, we aren't marxists. You need to achieve outcomes within the system otherwise you are just one bad guy (or SCOTUS, or election) away from losing everything
What's marxist is the complete disregard for the rule of law and the abuse of judicial power to push something, no matter how reasonable. Because it opens the doors for other marxist intentions, far more nefarious ones, when a leftist SCOTUS is at hand.
In general under marxist lens the rule of law is irrelevant, all that matters is achieving the revolution (or parts of it, including stopping the oppressor from oppressing and other marxists
But according to you China is Marxist. It's hard to see an absence of rule of law in that country.
But according to you China is Marxist. It's hard to see an absence of rule of law in that country.
are you serious? they decide what to apply arbitrarily every time, they make up claims to "disappear" you all the times, deprive you of rights theoretically existing in their constitution all the times and so on.
This is their article 35 of the constitution roflmao
Citizens of the People's Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.
Article 36
Citizens of the People's Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of religious belief.
No state organ, social organization or individual shall coerce citizens to believe in or not to believe in any religion, nor shall they discriminate against citizens who believe in or do not believe in any religion.
The state shall protect normal religious activities. No one shall use religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the state's education system.
Religious groups and religious affairs shall not be subject to control by foreign forces.
Article 37
The personal freedom of citizens of the People's Republic of China shall not be violated.
No citizen shall be arrested unless with the approval or by the decision of a people's procuratorate or by the decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ.
Unlawful detention, or the unlawful deprivation or restriction of a citizen's personal freedom by other means, is prohibited; the unlawful search of a citizen's person is prohibited.
And so on.
Comon man you can do better than this
^^ Go back to wherever you were before you came here a year ago if you can't argue reasonably.
are you serious? they decide what to apply arbitrarily every time, they make up claims to "disappear" you all the times, deprive you of rights theoretically existing in their constitution all the times and so on.
This is their article 35 of the constitution roflmao
Citizens of the People's Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.
Article 36
Citizens of the People's Republic
Governments abusing laws isn't unique to China and Russia, countries you (inaccurately) describe as Marxist. Look at the UK for instance. Government ministers have been routinely found to have broken laws. Is it Marxist? It's irrelevant. Governments almost everywhere are corrupt and trample over people's rights and freedom.
Umm.. not that it's relevant to the topic at hand, but there's a difference between poisoning political opponents with nerve agents and sending ethnic minorities to concentration camps which happen in Russia and China (and other totalitarian states), and run-of-the-mill government corruption that happens to one degree or another in all countries....
^^ Go back to wherever you were before you came here a year ago if you can't argue reasonably
Then make a reasonable argument.
You totally seriously just appealed to China as your exemplar of the ‘rule of law’, which instantly demonstrates you have zero grasp of the philosophical concepts behind what the rule of law even means, or what it’s presence intends to guarantee for the citizens of a society; at least in the manner we practice ‘rule of law’ in the west.
You just beclowned yourself.
Hard to take seriously from this point forward if thats the wavelength you’re on.
Umm.. not that it's relevant to the topic at hand, but there's a difference between poisoning political opponents with nerve agents and sending ethnic minorities to concentration camps which happen in Russia and China (and other totalitarian states), and run-of-the-mill government corruption that happens to one degree or another in all countries....
You haven't been following the UK's attempts to send asylum seekers (aka ethnic minorities) to Rwanda, in contravention of Human Rights law. Obviously the behaviour of a Marxist state.
Then make a reasonable argument.
You totally seriously just appealed to China as your exemplar of the ‘rule of law’, which instantly demonstrates you have zero grasp of the philosophical concepts behind what the rule of law even means, or what it’s presence intends to guarantee for the citizens of a society; at least in the manner we practice ‘rule of law’ in the west.
You just beclowned yourself.
Hard to take ser
I made the mistake of going back and reading some of your posts.
The destruction of the independent family unit is the highest priority, because the nuclear family as the basis for society foments resistance against agendas from the Marxist state, which are often contrary to the interests typically developed by nuclear families.
Tin foil hatted paranoid Reds under the Bed rants. That figures. Must really suck to be this scared all the time.
^^ Go back to wherever you were before you came here a year ago if you can't argue reasonably.
Governments abusing laws isn't unique to China and Russia, countries you (inaccurately) describe as Marxist. Look at the UK for instance. Government ministers have been routinely found to have broken laws. Is it Marxist? It's irrelevant. Governments almost everywhere are corrupt and trample over people's rights and freedom.
Yes you know necessary but not sufficient?
Many people disregard the rule of law.
Among them, Marxists.
So are all the people disregarding the rule of law Marxists? No.
But all marxists disregard the rule of law.
Btw you privately doing the **** you want with your life is yet another entirely different thing.
We are talking disregard of the rule of law while trampling upon individual rights and the constitution in general, when acting with state power.
That happens in the UK for example but far far far less than in China.
They are.
“ZOMG Cuba had the highest literacy rate in the world! Capitalism SUX”
They’re like small children, with the reasoning of small children.
They usually claimed health care is better better in Cuba, at least that was what Michael Moore generated for a decade.
Then that take went almost forgotten. Some people tried it during COVID because of cuban vaccines but they were far worse than capitalist, privately developed vaccines they went silent about that
Well ok. We agree that governments of all persuasion disregard law when it suits them. So why highlight what you call "Marxist" governments? It's poor logic and makes you look like a propagandist.
You haven't been following the UK's attempts to send asylum seekers (aka ethnic minorities) to Rwanda, in contravention of Human Rights law. Obviously the behaviour of a Marxist state.
Normal states give different eights to citizens and to foreigners, that's not Marxist.
Actually full internationalism is Marxism, treating your own people as objectively inherently worthy of more rights is not Marxism, rather the opposite
Perhaps you do, but unfortunately there are some on the right who most certainly do not, and even more unfortunately, some of them are legislators who use this excuse to target transgender people with the unneeded hammer of overreaching legislation to solve what they are portraying as a problem that could easily enough be figured out by experts in the field. Sure, there are some on the left who have done harm with extreme messaging, but tha
Bobo,
what sort of legislation are you talking about? i don't keep up on this stuff all that great but if it's legislation saying anyone under 18 can't take hormones or get surgery than i think that's a pretty good idea and not targeting anyone.
if its stuff like blacklisting/harassing etc trans adults then i do not support it. adults should be free to do what they want to but when it comes to such things as genital mutilation and/or medicine that changes the natural cycle of human growth than that stuff needs to be kept away from children.
Normal states give different eights to citizens and to foreigners, that's not Marxist.
Actually full internationalism is Marxism, treating your own people as objectively inherently worthy of more rights is not Marxism, rather the opposite
It has been for a long time, true, but there were also Marxists who weren't internationalists.
Well ok. We agree that governments of all persuasion disregard law when it suits them. So why highlight what you call "Marxist" governments? It's poor logic and makes you look like a propagandist.
Because i got asked what had marxism to do with gay marriage legalization in america, and i answered that.
