The costs of trans visibility

not sure if ok, as he was a socialist, but afaik he wasn't connected with the pedophile clique above.

Derrida and Foucault (the latter being the most cited author in papers in human history according to google scholar, because of it's monstrous influence in the social sciences) co signed the pedophile manifesto though.

these two lads are behind BLM (and others) theories as we know.

My brother in Christ, you are the one who believes in John Moneys wackjob bullshit. I'm literally calling you guys anti-trans for believing in social contagion and you are claiming that the pro-trans ideology is founded on sexuality as a learned trait.

I feel like I'm getting pranked right now because this is so ****ing stupid

Wild ass post btw. Should probably be retained for continuity but has very little basis in reality unfortunately.

check the mentioned names yourself before claiming they weren't foundational names of gender theory, or before claiming that the Marxists and pedophiliac tendencies I described are made up.

it was truly horrible, horrible people man

John money (totally, completely, with no basis) makes up the idea "gender" exists separately from biological sex, and claims it's learnable.

trans activists today keep the made up gender idea but claim it's innate.

truth as before John money appeared on the scene is the same. there is no gender independent from biological sex.

There are only two sexes.

And there are a few people that consistently don't feel they are of their biological sex rather of the opposite, and we call them trans.

This is a ****ing lie bud. You are so learned on the subject there is zero doubt in my mind that you know Money coined gender role not gender identity. That was coined by Stoller and Greenson in 1963

I know, without a doubt, that you are entirely aware of this, but you would rather spew lies. Its pathetic man. How many times can you get called out for lie after lie after lie and keep pressing forward?

Just so you guys understand the distinction

vs

and just so you guys understand this isn't some recent woke revisionist bullshit or whatever lie you might want to spin up next, people were acknowledging this 20 years ago

God knows how many years into this thread and these guys still don't understand the absolute basic terminology.

ye John money just created the "gender identity clinic" in 1965 after having written on the topic for about a decade, nothing to see there.

it's possible although debatable that gender identity with that meaning was first described by stroller then 1-2 years later used by money to name his own ****ing clinic lol, the fact was, Money was infinitely more popular and cited by all radical leftists interested on the topic for decades (including the "great" Camille Paglia), so the claim that he was a pivotal figure in the establishment of gender theory still stands.

I know trans activists today are desperate to sever connections from that true monster, I get it.

but when one of your founding fathers is like that there is no escape from truth, no matter how much hatred for what I wrote you can muster, the foundations of gender theory are built of that.

back to topic, you haven't commented on the Marxist foundations of gender theory, which you derided but for which I gave you elements.

do you want more elements? is it really controversial to claim the topic was studied and developed by ultra radical leftists?

lol we understand what you guys claim to be the "standard" newspeak terminology, but we completely reject it.

you don't get to define words and concepts

You realize of course that everything you quoted is pure nonsense, right?

I don't value your opinion on the subject. Your antecedents feared Irish, Polish, Italian (who knows what other European immigrants, let's just say all) migration.

You're an atavism to that time, to those superstitions, predictably focused on today's migrant. That you also believe the eternal [strike]jew[/strike] Marxist to be shepherding the hordes to our shores is vapid(I know, I know, I should google it! Like there's a precedent, a nation similarly situated in human history to the U.S. that was subverted by Marxist ideology)

protestants correctly feared catholic immigrants given the atrocities committed by catholics to them not too many centuries before and it was Italian and Irish responsibility to prove their worth as contributors to american society, and they did.

they took everything by merit, nothing was given for free (no welfare), many many Italians in the USA ended up being actually trash (organized crime anyone?) and it took a while to eradicate them.

And where Italian immigrants were even more common things didn't end up that well.

Argentina went from being the richest (per Capita GDP) country in the world around late 19th century to what it is now.

Venezuela, where Italians were the biggest foreign born community in 1970, ended up to what it is now.

Do you spend a lot of time listening to or reading Jordan Petersen? Because that would be a mistake, and repeating them because you haven't seen the flaws an even bigger mistake.

@jalfrezi lol at the idea it's "peterson"

That insight from Professor Wiener was important, as it foreshadowed the identity-based Marxism of the 21st century. The struggle would no longer be based on economic class but on identity—based on ascribed characteristics, such as race, sex, or national origin, that are inherited at birth and over which the individual has no control. The reasons were simple: Economic classes fluctuate, especially under capitalism, where people can, and often do, change their stations in life. Race, sex, and national origin are, however, immutable. They are thus superior loci of revolutionary change. This is why the new Marxism emerged victorious on college campuses and elsewhere in American cultural centers starting in the late 1980s, whereas it had failed when it relied on social class and guns. This new mutation of Marxism was cultural—“cultural Marxism.” It began to be debated and written about in the 1920s and the 1930s, by Antonio Gramsci in Italy and the so-called Frankfurt School in Germany, but this cultural Marxism only came to full fruition in the late 1960s when Gramsci was first translated into English and the Frankfurt School’s Herbert Marcuse came to prominence among university students. Gramsci was translated by the British journal New Left Review, and Marcuse came to be known as the guru of the New Left. This Special Report discusses the dangers posed by this new mutation, one hatched by the 1960s’ New Left.

On American, Canadian, Western European, and even Japanese college campuses in the early 1960s, rebellion found fertile ground in a rising generation of students. It was there that the New Left was born. Universities then continued to serve the revolution by providing a supportive ecosystem to those radical students as they entered adulthood and became professors, where they could indoctrinate subsequent generations.

The strategy to achieve the new cultural Marxism was also no longer predicated on Marx’s original prescription, the violent overthrow of the system by the working class, or in Marx and Engel’s own words, “formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and] conquest of political power by the proletariat.”4
Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p. 50.

Rather, the strategy now draws on Gramsci’s concept: Ideologues must infiltrate institutions and all of society and “raise the consciousness of” the “oppressed” with a new cultural worldview, or narrative.

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/r...

You can easily see BLM and the trans activist movement to be exactly that, word by word.

Straw men.

"Cultural framework"? wtf is that exactly?

Also many people in non-Western countries would disagree that we live better. Your definition of better has wealth as a major factor, but some people around the world reject this in favour of other values and would absolutely not swap places with you. Your obsession with Western cultural hegemony comes across as a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, and prevents you from seeing or acknowledging this.

Not sure who makes it into your "whites" set. Do Jewish people? Because a lot of white supremacists don't agree, and you might like to consider the contributions made by the former.

I even put white between "" because it's a silly currently used definition in America (and a legal one at that, it is used to decide if gerrymandering is legal or not among other things).

please link me to the rules about which ancestry a person is allowed to be proud about in this forum so I will follow them, I missed that part it seems.

but if the topic is "why you think BLM Marxism" I think I should be allowed to claim that anti white racism is Marxism because Marxists nowadays are anti white (as identified as the oppressor) and so only being pro white is the proper way to fight Marxism currently

It is and I deleted a couple of those posts.

Whites have done some good things and some bad things, but I think you're failing to take into account that the Mayans invented zero.

Silly to do that. We're already talking about it now and now the context is lost.

please let me read what the rules are because I didn't get the idea that it was not allowed to talk in favour of whites in this forum, especially when criticizing explicit anti white racism

as per trans activism being Marxist, other than all the theory being based upon writings by Marxists and post Marxists, it's very clear they define what they call "cisgenders" as the oppressor, with trans people the oppressed (they claim a genocide is happening), and that is Marxism 101 as well.

and btw this is another reason why some people, at the margin, not wanting to be identified as what they believe to be violent genocidal oppressors (that's literally the narrative from the most extreme fringed of trans activism), could decide to self identify as LGBTQ+ at least in polls

This seems specious fwiw.

what is, that a lot of radical leftists are anti white explicitly currently?