The costs of trans visibility

example of it being okay for religious people to be labeled as "nuts, crazy etc." but not a protected group.

as far as i know the WHO doesn't think believing in god to be a mental illness.

probably the people competing in them. there is a reason weight classes exist in combat sports, just as there is a reason men aren't fighting women or racing against them. a born woman who trains her entire life to win a medal is being disserviced if she has to compete against someone born a man.

I doubt you're draft age. But do you really think draft evasion by pretending to be trans is an issue large enough to affect anything in any draft you can imagine in the real world? If so, lol really. In pretty much any conceivable situation where the USA would institute a draft there'd be tons of people volunteering and tons of shame for evading and 20 year olds don't stand up to that very well and the numbers pretending to be trans would be insignificant. If not, then why bring up what you, as a 45 year old would consider doing? Who cares?

Even though the idea of God is batshit insane you don't really have to be mentally ill to believe in it. Mostly you have to be a frightened conformist.

So athletes who have trained their whole lives to compete for medals care? Great, that's 0.001% of the population. Take it to SE.

If I had read it I would probably have said something like "it IS a pretty ****ing stupid book" instead of "SEEMS like a pretty ****ing stupid book", but believe it or not I don't automatically read a book because it was written by a black man.

I know 99% of the time anyone says the word "woke" unironically it's a dumb conservative and it's going to take more than being on the NYT bestseller's list to get me to read a book with that title.

But you know unlike trans who are not a protected group in 26 states, religions ARE a protected group everywhere in the USA. Even Christians.

Luciom- while I personally think your attempts to lump so many different things to "cultural marxism" and that there seems to be a group of "activists" who flow from one cause to another as they see fit, are weakly supported, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I would like to clarify a term you use repeatedly.

You reference the oppressor/oppressed model a lot. Do you consider claims that a group that feels they are being discriminated against in some way is the same as claiming they are oppressed? Or is there a difference between discrimination and oppression as you are using that term?

Thanks

Luiciom, how come you're not mad that employers are not allowed to discriminate against Christians? (now you're probably going to say you're mad about that to, but you're not)

You prefer a society where only poor people have to fight for the survival of the country because they need the money? That's what happens when there is no general draft.

I would do this, without a doubt, and with no hesitation whatsoever.

there are various differences, the main one being that oppressed status is defined by outcome not by actions a group is targeted with.

Jews for example have been certainly widely discriminated against in american history, and maybe still are to some extent, but given they still managed to get good income/social status (as a group, on average ), they never reach oppressed status in cultural Marxism.

Asians, especially dark-skinned Asians, are certainly discriminated against at least a little today, but given the silly asian label lumps all of them together and they have decent group outcomes, not only they aren't put in the oppressed role, they often get defined as white -equivalent ie oppressor.

otoh when a group has bad outcomes, their claims of discrimination are automatically accepted as truths by cultural Marxism, like blacks claiming they get assassinated disproportionately by the police even if they don't; because their bad outcomes are per se proof of being oppressed in cultural Marxism.

cultural Marxism is focused on outcomes not on truth about causal relationships.

So if a group manages to overcome obstacles with it's own talents, it loses the right to be defended by Marxists and viceversa if a group can be sometimes at least partially responsible for bad outcomes, that possibility disappears for cultural Marxists and even mentioning the possibility the bad outcomes are actually so because of something the group does consistently gets cultural Marxists very angry.

for example a claim that some differentials in income between men and women are because women prefer, choose, lower paying sectors (and part time more often in many countries) is considered anathema by cultural Marxists.

They only check incomes and if they are lower the group is oppressed full stop.

cultural Marxism removed agency from groups that have bad outcomes, it basically posits over average outcomes ARE oppression and viceversa.

that's the generalization of a zero sum view of society Marxists developed quite early about rich vs poors, the notion that rich people are such because they somehow steal from the rest of the population in some sense. That notion is now rarely used domestically (other wise the DEI cultural Marxists raking 300k/year to apply bullshit DEI principles would be an oppressor), but you still find it with international comparisons sometimes, with wild claims that capitalist countries are only reach because they exploit poor countries.

in cultural marxism that zero sum notion is applied to everything. you check health outcomes, if a group has worse health outcomes then it's oppressed. unless of course it's white or men which can never be oppressed definitionally for cultural marxism.

which is why the lower life expectancy of men vs women is never mentioned as proof of oppression, while lower women income is.

20K-30K young men moved to Canada during the Vietnam war to evade the draft. They relocated to a different country, believing they would most likely never be able to come back to the country of their birth, never see their friends and family again. You don't think many more than that would claim to be a woman to avoid the draft?? Why do you assume there would be tons of shame? The veterans were often shamed by society in that era, not the draft dodgers. Most likely no one else would even know you evaded the draft - not every man in the correct age was drafted; people would just assume your number hadn't been chosen, or you had flat feet or a school/family deferment or whatever.

I don't understand the question because I have repeatedly stated I am against all anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.

I am not "mad" those laws exist but they create an obscene burden and give totalitarian power to the state, who is then able to put all your hiring, firing, business association choices under discussion , especially when silly statistical discrimination claims are made.

given the latter discrimination against christians in christian majority countries is easier, because only minorities and women are checked for statistical discrimination afaik.

if a company hires 80% women and promotes women preferentially that doesn't automatically give ground for anti discrimination fines afaik, same for non-christians.

The last time I heard "woke" spoken was by a black woman on NPR. I'm pretty sure she wasn't using it ironically, and she certainly wasn't a conservative.

Did you not know that the term was originally used by the US black community?

The Selective Service has already addressed the issue of whether transgender people must register for the draft. And while currently females do not register and arent subject to the draft, both houses Armed Services Committees have recently included changing that but conservatives blocked it from remaining in the Defense Authorization Act.

When the SCOTUS last looked at this issue, it declined toget involved as women were barred by law from serving in combat zones. Those restrictions are gone now, so it is likely that should a draft ever be reinstate, women would most likely be included.

Interestingly, during the Vietnam War draft, homosexuals were not eligible to be drafted. But it wasnt a matter of just checking a box and being excused. Rather, Army doctors in many cases just chose not to believe people even with substantial documentation and classified them as draft eligible anyway.

That's hilarious, what kinds of documentation did they try to present? I can just picture someone trying to prove to a doctor that they were homosexual. Maybe getting down on his knees and giving the doctor a BJ?

I think it was documents from doctors, as back then the military classified it as a disqualifying medical condition. But Im sure straight guys pretending to be gay would attempt the approach you picture.

It was just a flippant post. I make lots of them.

That's not true. Volunteers are not poorer than average.

So?

Cite?

You started this post with two paragraphs lying about it, but couldn't help adding two more about how you're mad that white Christian men are oppressed. How Marxist of you.

I don't really believe you but whatever, your report of one instance is worthless. You don't even try to claim anything about who you most often hear using the term, just about how you heard it one time.