The Xenofeminist Manifesto

URL: https://laboriacuboniks.net/manifesto/ What do you think of this, Lain? I read it a while ago, and it's definitely inspired a lot of my current beliefs. I recommend at least giving it a read. :) Though, I fear it might be a bit inaccessible to people who don't enjoy manifestos. Do you enjoy manifestos, Lain?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

I saw this thread hanging around in the catalogue for a few days and decided to read the manifesto and give my "thoughts" since nobody else has, I have recently had a burgeoning interest in philosophy so why not, I said. I thought of some things to say over my reading, but I decided to just distill them down. I didn't really agree with much of the manifesto, and that statement alone is meaningless because the author doesn't expound upon any of their beliefs in a manner that would allow me to meaningfully agree or disagree by the way of analysis, I feel as though I'd be putting more effort into my pointless critique than they would have into their writing of the manifesto. A lot of the text, probably the majority, I would read, and glean no meaning from. I understood the words, and the concepts they intended to express, yet they were these empty, sometimes vacillating, strings of words, although sometimes eloquently strung together. I feel as though, and I would probably be correct in feeling this way, that this manifesto is intended for people who already agree with its tenets. The only manifesto I've read before was ISAIF, but I guess it's not really a manifesto, also a few manifestos written by some mass murderers but they were too poorly written for me to complete them. If this is what manifestos are, well... I probably won't read too many to completion. I don't think the person who wrote this truly knows what they want, nor do I think they have conceived of a coherent way of manifesting their desired reality. I was thinking as I was reading, 'is this meant for real women or transgenders', because this is reminiscent of the kinds of rants I hear from the severely mentally ill transgenders and nonbinaries I have interacted with online for long enough and with enough frequency to lead me to the belief that arguing with them is just pointless conflict. I tried to smother that thought so as not to prejudge the author, and I did so, and it later turned out that I was probably correct in my assumption. I don't particularly look down upon transgenders, in that if I determine something to have been written by one I will disregard all they have said, I will not do such a thing, but the forms of thought which are expressed in the manifesto really are endemic of the kinds of mentally ill minds found within internet-addicted transgenders. It's beyond reason to me. >If nature is unjust, change nature! This is a perfect display of it, I used to laugh, now I just kind of feel some pangs of pity. Anyway now that I'm bumping it hopefully someone else reads this and makes a more constructive post, and you get something out of this thread.

I'm writing this post has i'm taking a break. I made it a bit less than half-way through it. (at 0x0B) I also scanned the manifesto a bit to get a very brief general idea of the ideas. Good god this is dense. This is a real shame because it is not just inaccessible to people who don't like manifestos. This is inaccessible to people who don't have solid reading comprehension skills, which is probably their intended audience. (honk honk.) I'm taking a jab at my own kind, the queer and trans people they appear to appeal to, but I went into this expecting a light read. I ended up pulling up notepad and analyze the paragraph one by one. Removing all the fluff that makes this manifesto so incredibly hard to decipher. Trying to gather the general ideas being brought up by each paragraph. Silly me for thinking something named "The Xenofeminist Manifesto" would be anything but light. Also, can I complain about the awful website? My god is it hard on the eyes. I can sense the "Graphic design is my passion!" in between the blinding white and neon red #ff0000 colors. Though, Despite my complains, I do agree with most of what i've read so far. Maybe this will change as I read more about it? I don't really feel like trying to read more of it. I honestly feel like my time is better spent doing something else rather than trying to understand something that I most likely already agree with, but don't care enough to read about or debate about. From what i've read, It's basically a call to push back against the capitalistic machines and gender norms. Or, any norm at all, infact. It is very "anti-naturalist". (The reasoning is expanded in 0x04 and 0x11) They say modern feminism is way to modest and isn't adequate for modern tech. Hence the need for XF (Xenofeminism) They also call for more inclusive measures when developing tech. To include the possibility of trans and non-binary genders when developing some technologies. (To some this may be an odd request, but this is more geared at technology that do things like face ID and body analysis and such. Example: To throw away the expected "Gender = Sexe" idea when developing something like an all body scanner for airports. (Which can cause problems to trans people who's gender on their passport may not match the expected body structure and may prompt a search on their person.)) (I personally disagree and think we should destroy that kind of tech (that tries to build ID from a person) all together, but oh well.) They also call for stuff like privacy and to equip people with tech that respect privacy and protect real identities. mentioned in 0x07. It was kinda funny to read it because it felt kinda outta no where? but nice that they have to say it I guess? >TL;DR : They advocate for a future where gender is removed from power and tech, claim nothing is so sacred that it shouldn't be engineered with (hinting at the body and Naturalism's idea of the body being sacred) and says fuarrrk capitalism. Don't think I'm in the right mindset to talk about it more, nor to read it. I mostly agree with the general ideas. Sounds cool af and opens up ideas for body modification and soykaf, and advocates for a future society that is okay with this kind of stuff. typical cyberpunk type beat stuff with a hint of "not capitalism". The stereotypical idea of "feminism", to which the name implies, does not really exist, oddly enough. A welcome surprise but kinda expected when you want to throw away gender norms. Unfortunately, I just don't think it is worth my time to dedicate a good full and thorough comprehensive read. >pic slightly unrel

>>9678 It just seems like left accelerationism applied to gender and feminism along with the typical academic high theory Deleuze babble. Lots of academic theory users are obsessed with being cool and latch on to cyberpunk, sci fi and vague hacker aesthetic to hide the fact they are actually a bunch of insufferable white collar nor mies. Its like the hedge fund kid who dresses punk, pretends to be poor, and calls himself an anarchist. You should check out Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto or the writings of Sadie Plant. They're more interesting than this manifesto. >>9682 >push back against the capitalistic machines and gender norms You see this sentiment a lot in trans queer stuff but is abolishing gender or gender norms really a good idea? Every community generates norms and unwritten rules we're supposed to deal with to get by. Is abolishing that even feasible? The authors say they want a world where there are no norms but they also want gender abolition, essentially they want non-binary to be the norm. What can be more normative than that?

>>9682 >This is inaccessible to people who don't have solid reading comprehension skills, which is probably their intended audience. Only intelligent people can explain complex ideas simply because to explain a thing you must first understand it and for a complex idea to appear simple in your mind, intelligence is required. This is why when a text is complex and hard to decipher, it is either about an authentically complex issue like quantum physic, something middy complex wrote by someone of limited intelligence or the work of a fraud who compensate the simplicity of his ideas by vague notions and complex sentence structures. It have to be one of the 3 and I can only guess this isn't the first case. This is confirmed by the Anon above you. >A lot of the text, probably the majority, I would read, and glean no meaning from. I understood the words, and the concepts they intended to express, yet they were these empty, sometimes vacillating, strings of words, although sometimes eloquently strung together. >This is a real shame because it is not just inaccessible to people who don't like manifestos. The point of a manifesto, and that's why it is called like that is to make your views, to explain your actions and motivations to the greatest possible number. Take the communist manifesto: you don't need to take notes to understand it. They have a full literature for that. The problem isn't there. Without clicking, it is already clear that the text is made opaque if not hermetic on purpose. >They say modern feminism is way to modest and isn't adequate for modern tech. Hence the need for XF (Xenofeminism) If they assume feminism is anything other than a club for rich women to participate in a power struggle, then they are wrong. Poor women weren't even represented in the first time. Then the sufragettes were women who didn't had a problem with the fact that men and women were on different platform but they wanted the perks of men without the duties. It just kept going on the same way until the complete insanity of 2015. It never was about anything else than making the greatest divide in society be not political ideas but identity, effectively making democracies reach their dying age. Now IDpol are so common that every party in Europe have to fall to clientelism or to die. Look, I can see from here the author have rightfully understood that women wanted their movement to be about them and the gender thing had to behave like a pet to be accepted. I can guess this is why he want something new, that steal the word feminism but still will only contain their client segment of the population. Next he will discover LGB don't want to waste their energy on TQ and he will advocate for a specific movement. >They don't want AI and algorithms to ID them Well, this is bad but I have a good news. We will soon be as Orwelian as China and the cameras will associate their face with their full name, address and social security number. Hurray for the cyberpunk nightmare! >They also want more privacy You can't have your cake and eat it. Either the machine ID you by name and go fetch your self declared identity or it don't. > They advocate for a future where [ID] is removed from power and tech We all know, them included that they keep their identity as a group if it happen. This is an IDpol movement in a power struggle, of course they won't ditch their ID. >Capitalism says the body is sacred. Wrong. Capitalism says the body is a commodity to buy and sell, do disassemble and reassemble, a market for healthcare and now even a market for customization. Capitalism marketed the womb of women so that you can now rent it to grow your baby created in a lab. Capitalism is ductile and absorbed the trans movement. This is a 100 millions $ market, all paid for by a third party that doesn't negotiate prices. There is a reason why corpos and banking cartels sponsor the pride parades and have mandatory sensitivity training. Trans are customers for services and products. Capitalism fuel itself of the gender thing and in a large part is responsible for its existence. You would have never seen this is a communist or fascist or traditional national/royal economy or in corporatism. >Sounds cool af and opens up ideas for body modification and soykaf, and advocates for a future society that is okay with this kind of stuff I am sure capitalism oppose a new consumerist trend and the creation of new markets. Come on, who seriously think this is anything but an expression of unbrided capitalism? Have a quote from another manifesto about this. Anticapitalism is just a trend, the marker that you belong to a specific demography with specific needs for products and services. Capitalism provide to them too and they gladly accept.

>>9678 Couldn't make it through. I think it's crap.

>Why is there so little explicit, organized effort to repurpose technologies for progressive gender political ends? Getting gamergate flashbacks >Valuable platforms for connection, organization, and skill-sharing become clogged with obstacles to productive debate positioned as if they are debate. These puritanical politics of shame–which fetishize oppression as if it were a blessing, and cloud the waters in moralistic frenzies–leave us cold. We want neither clean hands nor beautiful souls, neither virtue nor terror. We want superior forms of corruption. Seems like a good sentiment. At least they realize Twitter is like kicking dead whales down the beach. >The will will always be corrupted by the memes in which it traffics, but nothing prevents us from instrumentalizing this fact, and calibrating it in view of the ends it desires. Seems kind of arrogant, assuming that understanding is complete enough to do this effectively instead of just larping like it's being done. Nice idea though. >Xenofeminism seeks to be a mutable architecture that, like open source software, remains available for perpetual modification and enhancement following the navigational impulse of militant ethical reasoning. Open, however, does not mean undirected. The most durable systems in the world owe their stability to the way they train order to emerge as an ‘invisible hand’ from apparent spontaneity So, pro systems awareness? Better than pretending systems don't really exist and everything is very simple I guess. >We see too well that reinventions of family structure and domestic life are currently only possible at the cost of either withdrawing from the economic sphere–the way of the commune–or bearing its burdens manyfold–the way of the single parent. If we want to break the inertia that has kept the moribund figure of the nuclear family unit in place, which has stubbornly worked to isolate women from the public sphere, and men from the lives of their children, while penalizing those who stray from it, we must overhaul the material infrastructure and break the economic cycles that lock it in place. The task before us is twofold, and our vision necessarily stereoscopic: we must engineer an economy that liberates reproductive labour and family life, while building models of familiality free from the deadening grind of wage labour. So, the American Dream is like kicking dead whales down the beach, fix things so people have better options, makes sense to me. >The rise of the internet and the hydra of black market pharmacies it let loose–together with a publicly accessible archive of endocrinological knowhow–was instrumental in wresting control of the hormonal economy away from ‘gatekeeping’ institutions So, it's cool that trans people can buy darknet meds. Personally I like that trans people who would otherwise buy into the cryptocurrency hate are forced to admit its usefulness. >How do we build a better semiotic parasite–one that arouses the desires we want to desire, that orchestrates not an autophagic orgy of indignity or rage, but an emancipatory and egalitarian community buttressed by new forms of unselfish solidarity and collective self-mastery? It's a good question at least, even if the wording of this whole thing is ridiculously verbose. But it's such a big question, and so far from anyone having a satisfying answer to it.

>>9678 Feminists trying to LARP as Nick Land is funny to me. It's as if they do not realize they are a completely high modernist artifact and that the singularity that would destroy modernity and the world as we know it would destroy them too. All because they refuse to undestand the true nature of what they call Patriarchy or Capital. There is a general misunderstanding in the sort of activist milieus that produce this sort of thought that they are rebels, that they are not, somehow, part of the system. All when this sort of hubristic denial of both the natures of humanity and of power is exactly what Socialism, Liberalism and all other such Enlightenment ideas are specifically based upon. The world where women are maximally liberated from gender, the one they call for and wish upon reality. It's already there, we live in it. And it's no utopia. All that pushing for more would result in is a feudalist and traditionalist reaction which is already happening. And that's a good thing.

>>9683 >>push back against the capitalistic machines and gender norms The weird part is also that they somehow think further commodification of the human experience is fighting *against* capitalism. Yeah just tie your entire existence to medical treatments, online communities and artifacts of consumption. That'll surely show the marketing department that sold them to you what for.

>>9690 >Yeah just tie your entire existence to medical treatments A lot of trans people have no plans to ever medically transition. Additionally, there are a lot of people who are working very hard to 'crowdsource' hormone pills. Hopefully it can eventually be like psychedelic mushrooms, cheap and plentiful and cooked up in someone's house. >online communities There are non-online trans communities. This is not an endorsement of them though. >artifacts of consumption. What artifacts of consumption? I think that a lot of the people that wrote this manifesto would probably agree that commodification of gender is a very bad thing and that trans people should not willingly do it. However, you seem to be making the assertion that *any transing of gender at all* is commodification of gender.

>>9691 I wasn't specifically talking about transpeople, though they are a conspicuous example of this sort of commodification of the human experience, they are not the only one. But to answer your question: yes, the process of Capital providing means to alter the organic human experience to fit whims rather than nature is, by definition, commodification. The AI from the future is building up industrial society to provide you with complex means of simulacra that allow you to live an experience that, though it is profoundly inorganic, suits your whims and desires and therefore realizes the primary function of Capital. Ask yourself, when it comes down to it, is the xenofeminist for or against making all of reality into computronium so long as the simulation it runs is something they desire? Like the communists and the liberals before them, they just want to ride the modernist train to a destination they like. And will cope and seethe when they realize that it doesn't just stop there. I say good. Run the train to its actual destination. The only moral action is the minimization of entropy.

Imagine writing a whole larp manifesto while xo-opting the term "feminism" and not showing the most basic understanding of what feminism is I woulda given a better response the the website was very ugly and hurt my eyes

>>9692 The fuarrrk are you on about m8.

>>9692 Commodification commodifies natural resources first and foremost before it makes products and services to commodify so you are making no sense whatsoever. Also who do you think you're fooling with this anti intellectualism primitivism while posting about it on modern technology you bought.

>>9696 Read Land. >>9697 How in the hell did you get "this must be a primitivist" from "we must run the train of modernism to its destination"? It's literally the opposite.

>>9698 I may have misread "destination" as "destruction"

Nietzsche once said said that there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. Well, I think we also ought to be saying that there was only one Accelerationist, and he lives in Shanghai.

bumping from /random/ because this topic was once important to me, and I don't think I ever articulated my thoughts on it. when I first read it was impressed by the web design, its very loud but simple and a pop art billboard with striking imagery which i felt was perfect for a manifesto. unfortunately i feel like xenofeminism is almost entirely aesthetic, I don't want to criticize a manifesto for being a declaration of views but i simply did not agree, as one of the trans women its ostensibly for, with the views its declaring. before an elaboration on this content the inclusion of a gif of the movie adaptation Frankenstein feels intended to set the tone that this women-in-tech approach to women's liberation is witnessed as unnatural and there is power in what we're doing. but I think the inclusion is ironically shortsighted when you consider that it was the gothic movement, in fact, mary shelley the daughter of mary wollstonecraft criticizing in that work the unreserved hypocrisy and arrogance of enlightenment rationalism. specifically, XF declaring itself a rational kind of feminism led to me going back and reading the declaration of the rights of women, one of the first pieces of rationalist feminism. my issue is the explications of rationalism as a necessary tool for women to be heard by and treated right by men who own the world, to be clear I am not arguing against all forms of reason - i quite like the late ursula le guin's statement on the subject, in fact, that women shouldn't embrace unreason and simple phallacies as a kind of women's truth that men will never understand. Rather it is the seeming trajectory of rational, humanistic feminism to be included into the liberal project rather than rejecting its hypocrisy, as many others would have before. "anything but this" would be an articulation of the potential alternatives i feel willing to endorse over this kind of begging. the piece's lack of context, and self-regard as a theoretical explication, demands context be provided and while it does present a number of works in follow up, the highly technical sounding *theory* does very little to justify itself - one is inclined to look beyond the canon its writers have selected for it. now, i might disclose as someone with a degree of familiarity with the specific writers of this manifesto, I was disappointed to learn that one of the writers was involved with an australian chaser most notable for getting an essay about how much he loves fuarrrking trans women and looking and transgender pornography into a journal after this manifesto was written. while this has very little to do with the text itself, i feel like it sets the tone of the collective's activities and I feel particularly bitter enough about this clique in particular (or at least, the people who want to be them - if you can imagine that) being the sorts who cargo-cultingly clap and say so tea and valid, queen, thank you for sharing your story. to be clear, we are talking about a collective consisting of both cis and trans women that constructed itself virtually in approximation of other, similar historical collectives, most notably VNS Matrix, but also of course the CCRU, "cyberpositive feminism", and others. So in spite of itself not being terrifically written, infamous lainchan user Nyx Land's gender accelerationism: a blackpaper makes perfect sense when you consider it a response to this piece, especially with the additional context of Pink and Black, the underappreciated rewrite she did only one year later: https://unlife.nyx.land/posts/pink-and-black.html note that while I don't think n1x's writing is great, it understands and gives voice to the equivocation made repeatedly ITT that xenofeminism's superficial flattening of the issues into "all women" commits more-or-less the same flaw as gender nihilism by diluting its message to the point of meaninglessness. >>9680 >the author doesn't expound upon any of their beliefs in a manner that would allow me to meaningfully agree or disagree by the way of analysis, I feel as though I'd be putting more effort into my pointless critique than they would have into their writing of the manifesto. there's a collection that expands on the ideas: https://laboriacuboniks.net/books/xenofeminism-helen-hester/ but yea, i pretty much agree. one notable addition to the collection is the degree to which it centers trans women's experience I'm assuming as a response to the claim by so-called xenofeminists on their ideology / clique that gender was aligned with and ultimately unnecessary. that cis white socialist feminists in academia or tech were the voice of women's liberation, and everyone else can fall in line with the agenda they've written. >>9683 >You should check out Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto or the writings of Sadie Plant. They're more interesting than this manifesto. of the three only sadie plant said anything new to me. she's not great either, though, these all unfortunately come from the same place - feminism in western academia. the only marxist/socialist/etc feminist text I've read that made a number of serious arguments was Gender and the South China Miracle. which has nothing to do with any of this, but i still suggest reading it instead. >>9690 >they somehow think further commodification of the human experience is fighting *against* capitalism. socialists have been saying "the only way out is through" since Marx, or perhaps even earlier. socialism, the first stage of communism, is the material outcome of capitalism and XF argues that alienation is its vehicle. while i disagree - this articulation of alienation basically forgets the marxist definition developed upon by the situationist international, and understand why you might see it as absurd, its really not. >>9691 >Hopefully it can eventually be like psychedelic mushrooms, cheap and plentiful and cooked up in someone's house. it already is, and has been for a while. but you have to know what to look for - although there's yet no synthesis from available raw materials like potatoes or algae, there's bulk suppliers of crystalline or powder estradiol in many countries that import to the united states, which many people are vialing themselves and distributing locally. unfortunately this cottage industry is under constant attack as resources like hrt.coffee have had to change hosts due to takedown attempts and major news publications have decided to target them. >>9700 >>9698 >>9689 read Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest. Land's entire project draws from Sadie Plant and needs her Feminism in order to function, you can't have accelerationism without her research into the situationists - the accelerationist equation of time to capital comes from and is best articulated by her.

>>10055 Good post lain Personally I find all this D&G and CCRU influenced stuff so tiresome now. Its boring. >it is the seeming trajectory of rational, humanistic feminism to be included into the liberal project rather than rejecting its hypocrisy, as many others would have before. "anything but this" would be an articulation of the potential alternatives i feel willing to endorse over this kind of begging. Agreed. But why do you refer to liberalism as hypocritical? I don't think it is. Liberals do exactly what they say they do. >these all unfortunately come from the same place - feminism in western academia. And your preferred authors don't? I don't get it. This kind of D&G influenced theory is pretty much standard reading at any college now. Idk why theory types have to keep up this image of being outsiders when academia is their bread and butter. Reading D&G is about the most conformist thing you could do right now. >socialists have been saying "the only way out is through" since Marx, or perhaps even earlier. socialism, the first stage of communism, is the material outcome of capitalism and XF argues that alienation is its vehicle. When have Marxists and Western socialists ever been right? They are consistently wrong about almost everything. This stage theory of history is probably wrong and "the only way is through" is just a vague idea not a credible strategy. You actually risk making the world worse by adopting that foolish approach. I thought Nyx' essay was a joke. Disappointing. Thanks for the link though. It's nice to see what they've been up to lately.

>>10055 >one of the writers was involved with an australian chaser most notable for getting an essay about how much he loves fuarrrking trans women and looking and transgender pornography into a journal after this manifesto was written. LMFAO source?

>>10067 >But why do you refer to liberalism as hypocritical? I don't think it is. Liberals do exactly what they say they do. going back this part reminds me of The Racial Contract by Charles W. Mills, where liberal orthodoxy claims a certain agnosticism about how people should be treated the philosophers in particular: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant; who formulated or contributed to social contract theory were invested in treating black people as property and formulated the contract on these terms. yet self-declared liberals will always also declare themselves anti-racist, and a tradition of liberal writing exists around acting like this never happened. in general its the idealism about society, not in terms of desiring a better future but rather in terms of society as an abstraction consistent of ideas, which often happens in place of materialistic understandings or really any discussion at all of what the government gets up to. theres a point at which the shortsightedness of liberal analysis can be more easily understood as willful ignorance, or simply lack of care about their subjects. where this applies to sex, i would say the vindication of power evident in maintaining that liberation might stem from, after the discussion of society as structurally patriarchal that putting more women at each echelon of the structure would make this true. but this is perhaps not taking liberalism on its own terms, and, unfortunately I can't provide you the organized critique of contemporary liberalism (thinking esp. of fukuyama's declaration that we at the end of history) I'd like to, as i haven't read this literature. admittedly, the category of material that this hypocrisy I'm speaking of is significantly smaller than every observation that might be made of liberals, for instance mao tse-tung's Combat Liberalism (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm) wouldn't fit this criteria as it describes liberalism as more of a conditionally-arising sentiment than a lineage of ideas, the former of which is not distant from how i think about ideologies in general. circling back to the point (sorry I have ADHD), the contemporary liberal feminism I have read positions itself against radical feminism for being pragmatic, with arguments involving social outcomes of important laws and court cases. however this sense of liberal pragamatism, i feel, basically neglects the pragmatism of direct action and collective organization, which might not even be illegal is not considered the appropriate way to change society. >>10084 the article was https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-8143449 however i think i fudged some of the details here, its been ~4 years since all of this went down. but I'm pretty sure this guy was being simped for.

>>10086 >Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant; who formulated or contributed to social contract theory were invested in treating black people as property and formulated the contract on these terms. yet self-declared liberals will always also declare themselves anti-racist Today's liberals look at Africans the same way Kant looked at blacks. They openly believe 3rd worlders to be inferior subhumans, just not biologically, and treat them as an expendable resource. Its not really hypocrisy just a straight forward evolution in their line of thinking. The problem I see with radical feminism is that it has a liberal core. The way radical feminists (just feminists in general really) conceive of the female subject and of individual agency are fundamentally liberal. This is probably why radical feminism fails. Liberal feminists can always claim their methods lead to better outcomes, and there's a partial truth to that. Since radical and liberal feminists have similar beliefs and end goals, opportunistically speaking, it makes more sense to be a liberal feminist so the radicals end up losing credibility. Jesus.. that actually got published in a serious journal. Wtf were the editors smoking?

>>10067 sorry i didn't get to the rest of your post btw. i got distracted thinking about liberals. >And your preferred authors don't? my preferred authors write fiction. but admittedly the theorists i like to read are tangential - many being non western academics, or public intellectuals. I don't mean to mythologize authenticity in these ways, though. > "the only way is through" is just a vague idea not a credible strategy I was paraphrasing on account that laying it all out here would be impossible. there's particularities that make Marx and others' theorizing useful to revolutionary, but they also make these ideas useful to people trying to political economy, and to those trying to climb academic hierarchies or base their socialization around some simulacra of such. all of this, however, is moreso a historical argument even as the last 3 categories of people, reading these particular authors most commonly exist now. rather than get into a slap fight about which group of theory espousers are the most Truly Radical I'm alot more interested in what's actually happening. Though perhaps so long as we are both interested in discussing history, it's not so wrong to call it a vague idea when I'm interested in the premise that Marx made unfalsifiable arguments and the forwardthinking-ness of him and others might have come from here. but I think that even if there is a wide variance to the potential ways that things unfold, there's still a possibility him saying, e.g., that increased surveillance at a rate to compensate decline of profits, or the movement of commodity from finished products being exchanged to their constituents. >I thought Nyx' essay was a joke it was half serious, basically culmination of effort someone as terminally depressed as she could muster, it was also written to "own" cave twitter and the like. so it was supposed to have elements of a good copypasta and be ~post-ironic~ and quoteworthy, ~memeable~, etc as those things spread easily online and for what its worth did achieve that - in fact it pretty much completely overshadowed everything else about her, to the extent that this essay alone being potentially racist / non-liberal / extremist to people who never read it seems to be where most of the outrage, which is now directed at her being, supposedly, some level 20 nightmare grooming abuse cult leader that apparently is still ongoing. >>10088 makes sense and IDK lol, Transgender Studies Quarterly has a reputation for being terrible.

>>10090 >the theorists i like to read are tangential - many being non western academics, or public intellectuals. Got any recommendations?

lads. there's so so much "i dont understand, ergo stoopid" cope in here. between that and "feminism bad". it's funny the second somebody >feminism the whole post turns into a sperging pressure cooker of self-congratulatory neet incels trying to (with very little success or opacity) trying to tear it down. only a few here have demonstrated any level of comprehension (and to the plebs who actually rubbed their two braincells together hard enough to generate a tiny spark of insight, or even a prescient critique, congratulations!!) to even say more than they don't understand. that's ok boys. settle down. go drop some e or actually just leave the basement for a bit. your precious cyb3rpoonk is just an aesthetic to draw inspiration and gives a deliberately "out there" scope of imagination to explore. relax, nobody is coming to hurt your qutsie "purist" lifestyle of self-inflicted alienation. try actually exploring the ideas - even if you're not a hot OwO Transbitch, consider the broader implications that could apply to you. Looksmaxx your boymode with augmentation, not with your virgin-ass apemode hammer time. You wanna be more man? man-up faggy frien, get bitches. yeah, academic is not "livin it", but even after you recompile your gentoo for the fifth time just to feel something, anything, just remember you could be extracting life by not being a discarded condom.

>>10099 I see you've written a lot but said very little anon.

>>10099 literally only three posts above yours. where's your third brain cell that's responsible for timing? should have used it to wait at least until there were some responses.

>>10103 you're retarded my dude, i didn't write that

>>10102 generally when you condescend to children about their inadequacy, it helps not to point out sprcifics which will further confuse them. go touch grass, find a girlfriend or anything.

>>10099 Alright, why the fuarrrk isn’t anyone using tech for gender politics? It’s a goddamn joke. Remember Gamergate? Same fuarrrking deal. Platforms that should be for organizing and real talk are clogged with pointless drama and virtue-signaling bullshit. Twitter? It’s like kicking dead whales down the beach. XF says fuarrrk the puritanical bullshit. We’re not here to be saints. We want to hack the system for our gain, not sit around whining. Yeah, maybe it sounds arrogant to think we can control memes and steer public opinion, but who the fuarrrk cares? XF is like open-source software—always evolving. We know systems are complex, and we need to use that, not act like it’s simple. The nuclear family model? It’s outdated trash that traps people. We need to change the economic systems that keep this soykaf going. It’s about valuing reproductive labor and giving people real options, not just grinding away at soykafty jobs. Look at the internet. Trans folks getting hormones from black market pharmacies? That’s tech working for the people, bypassing gatekeepers. Cryptocurrency? Hate it all you want, but it’s useful here. Admit it. The big question: How do we build tech that supports our goals and creates an egalitarian community? It’s a tough one, but at least we’re fuarrrking asking it. Let’s push for tech that serves us and stop pretending everything’s fine. Get your soykaf together, people.

>>10106 Thinking tech is gonna magically fix gender politics? You’re dreaming. First off, this whole idea of "hacking the system" for our gain is ridiculously naive. Tech isn’t some neutral playground; it’s controlled by corporations and governments who don't give a damn about liberation. You think they're just gonna let us take over? Please. The tools we need aren’t made for us—they’re made to keep the current power structures in place. And about the internet helping trans folks with black market pharmacies? Wake up. It’s dangerous. No regulation, no quality control. People are risking their lives because the systems in place suck. This isn’t some hero story; it’s a desperate measure. Long-term solution? Not even close. Cryptocurrency? You must be joking. Sure, it has its uses, but it’s also full of scams and illegal soykaf. Plus, it’s not accessible to everyone. You think everyone can just jump on the crypto bandwagon? Get real. There are massive socioeconomic barriers you’re conveniently ignoring. And overhauling economic systems that support outdated family models? That’s way beyond what tech can handle. These are deep, ingrained social issues. You can’t just slap a tech solution on them and call it a day. We need systemic change on multiple levels, not just some tech fix. And the idea we can control memes and steer public opinion through tech? Laughable. The internet’s a chaotic mess. Trying to direct it is like herding cats. Bold talk is cheap; real-world impact is a whole different ballgame. So yeah, this fantasy of tech saving us all? It’s just that—a fantasy. Time to wake up and realize we need a way more complex approach than just leaning on technology.

>>10095 I've recommended it earlier in this thread, but Ching Kwan Lee's Gender and the South China Miracle is basically the last piece of marxist feminism that has consistently said anything meaningful. it develops upon the method to a degree i haven't seen anywhere else, giving me the impression of actually meaningful economic research. I can't think of anything else in the marxist feminist trajectory that comes close - everything else might put things well and insightfully feels deeply rudimentary.

>>10108 >>10108 >>10108 Wow, looks like someone discovered their first piece of academic literature! Did Ching Kwan Lee personally hand you that book, or did you just stumble upon it while trying to sound intellectually superior? I mean, 'last piece of Marxist feminism that has consistently said anything meaningful'? Have you read anything else since then, or are you still stuck in 2007? You might want to check out some newer works before declaring the entire trajectory 'deeply rudimentary.' Or maybe you're just upset because the other books didn't come with pictures?

>>10106 >why the fuarrrk isn’t anyone using tech for gender politics? Isn't the idea that tech should be used instrumentally to obtain things that are useful to us the very same mindset of techno-capital itself? Its also not true that people aren't using tech for gender politics. You can see people crossdressing on TikTok or using Twitter to push obscure stuff like no fap or gender ideology conspiracies all the time. >Tech isn’t some neutral playground; it’s controlled by corporations and governments who don't give a damn about liberation Governments do care about getting to control the definition of liberation and portray themselves as liberated. They create playgrounds of illusory freedoms. Then the problem becomes, even if I'm someone who opposes these governments and their ideas, how do I know my own desire for liberation and freedom isn't the outcome of a psyop? >>10108 Marxist feminism hasn't been relevant since people like Marylin Strathern first begun punching holes in it. Marxism is a dead end. People are too afraid to admit this because they think its a symbolic victory for capitalism or something. >>10110 Pic rel

>>10110 >Did Ching Kwan Lee personally hand you that book, or did you just stumble upon it while trying to sound intellectually superior? it was gifted to me by one of my oldest friends when she took her van down to assateague for a camping trip together. i started to read it on the trip, and i was so engrossed she said I could have it. >Have you read anything else since then, or are you still stuck in 2007? besides a couple other CCRU texts (including, before you ask, 2023's Revolutionary Demonology) I've been reading The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga. It's not theory, but I actually did pick it up in post-colonial studies and it makes sense why it was included in the curriculum. there's a couple other things I've been reading too, but these titles seem like the canon of trve intelligentsia, serious business type Theory which you've made so much investment in. anyways, you seem really upset that I spoke ill of the academy, and I'm honestly wondering what your problem is. are you the same person as >>10107 , or >>10106 ? both? regardless if you have academic ambitions, i don't want to imply they're worthless: it seems like a stable and productive thing to do with the next couple years of your life, if you don't have to go into debt for it. at least, as comfortable in these times as one can be. >>10111 it's ironic too, because marxists are by-and-large interested in maintaining capital, or at very least the minimum-viable system that can be described as not capitalism. is Strathem worth looking deeper into? my immediate theory about marxism is that it might be hard to escape for someone who was first radicalized by it. When i first got into anti-civ stuff, it was also my first dive to society-as-a-mobile-structure, and for a while found myself falling back to its reasoning when it came to harder-to-answer questions in only 1 minute to talk about. wondering if perhaps there is a sense of despair that comes with being provided a critique of it, without replacement for the meal of a complete worldview.

>>10112 >is Strathem worth looking deeper into? Unless you have an interest in ethnography, no. There are a lot of people working in fringe areas like that who've been punching holes in established thinking but don't get much attention. Marxism is the mirror image of liberalism. Same messianic self-righteousness, same arrogance, same self-confidence in supposedly scientific and objective ideas. You are probably right. Marxists still suffer from cold war "with us or against us" mentality.

>>10114 That's a rather broad bush anon. I don't get that sense at all from the Marxist authors I read. But then I don't read feminist authors, lol.

>>10115 i honestly think feminists can be less party-line in some respects because it provides something else to believe in. like, we've been replaying the same criticisms made of marxists, leftist men, etc. for the past 60 years, or maybe 100. because they just keep doing that. >>10114 i mean if its anthropology i dont think the departure from marxism, or liberalism, is so niche really. like graeber is not unheard of but his theses seem like a pretty fundamental replacement for the implicit liberalism of marxist DSA/PSL book club posturing.

>>10112 >anyways, you seem really upset that I spoke ill of the academy, and I'm honestly wondering what your problem is. are you the same person as >>10107 , or >>10106 ? both? regardless if you have academic ambitions, i don't want to imply they're worthless: it seems like a stable and productive thing to do with the next couple years of your life, if you don't have to go into debt for it. at least, as comfortable in these times as one can be. that's really weird

>>10118 Feminists have other problems and are as prone to petty infighting and xenophobia. Pop pseudo-feminists putting out ragebait articles or Tumbler/Twitter is the main cause of anti-feminist backlash. I've found feminists to be about as dogmatic as any other group but a bit more open to revision. There are interesting feminists out there working on the margins. I'm not sure if Graeber is an implicit liberal. I've never really read his political works and to be honest I don't like his anthropology all that much. Not really sure where to start with that as I'm so burnt out of leftist critical theory right now. I'm so tired of this stuff.

>>10121 Graeber was an anarchist, but like so many anarchists his ideas without a strong theoretical bases sometimes devolved into liberal pisstakes. He had a really weird, inconsistent definition of "capitalism" in his Debt book, even though the rest of it seemed pretty sound to me.

>>10120 sorry? if u have a problem you should say it, im sorry for patronizing you but i really dont know what u expect me to do with what u said. do you have any real thoughts or recommendations? or are you just here to be toxic to microcosms you don't identify with >>10121 he's not, im saying that discussing / reading him with anarchists who actually do stuff seems to be a lot more fulfilling than marxist-leninist student groups (or twitter group chats) where the main activity seems to be theory. like, these activities feel like a radical chic mirror to liberal political science students who are fundamentally doing the same things (reading books and writing essays about them, organizing protests, political campaigns, networking, building a resume) even if the texts have different opinions in them.

>>10121 Intersectional feminism defend the idea that all struggles are in fact the same struggle. Men vs women, black vs white, cis vs trans and all the rest it's all the same thing for them. "Society" is to blame. Of course it never hit them that society is just the sum of all the people living in it and the problem they want to address are created by the demographic they says are oppressed by "society". No, 5% of the population isn't doing all of the oppressing, crazy, right? Gays are misogynist, Muslims are homophobes, trans are against islam, regular feminists see trans as the patriarchy trying to hack them... It make no sense but ideologies does not need to make sense to have millions of followers. The main cause of antifeminism is more caused by the fact that the people in position of power force spoonfeed everyone with it and it have real life consequences like quotas. The annoying lolcows would be easily ignored otherwise.

>>10124 you should really elaborate on specifics, this is low effort and derails a perfectly good conversation without it.

>>10123 In my experience they aren't that different although there's more freedom in anarchist spaces they can be just as dogmatic and narrow. I do like the anarchists that came out of anthropology though. Although I prefer Sahlins to Graeber personally. >>10124 Feminism is in a crisis because of liberal/leftist pop feminism taking over and managerial types and governments implementing it as a means of divide and conquer and branding. This pop feminism is incoherent and elitist but there are worthwhile feminist authors out there. Your missing out if you write the whole tradition off because of how bad the mainstream version of it is. The problem with feminism today is that feminist anthropologists like Saba Mahmood have chewed a hole through its foundations, pointing out how feminism has always been an elitist movement dominated by a very narrow group of people and their cultural and ideological values. It doesn't matter if they are tranny bashing essentialists or radical xenofeminists, all of them carry these unexamined assumptions with them. There really hasn't been a serious response to this.

>>10124 Sounds like you're just making things up as you go along, no, intersectionality is the idea of combinations of societal status make things worse which is somewhat true but mostly not. That is why it is called Intersectionality, the intersection of all the factors combined being their own unique experiences. The problem with it is it treats the experiences of people based on their demographics as if they are a monolith and almost as if this can be literally calculated rather than admitting that some of it is down to luck and you are making the same mistake of generalizing.

>>10128 fair 'nough. my broader point was just that its increasingly evident how of-its-time marxist feminism was, I would argue in comparison to older anarchist (feminist?) philosophers like Goldman who seem just as, if not more, relevant today. >There really hasn't been a serious response to this. sorry if i shouldn't reply to another thread of the discussion, but i think it depends on what you mean by "serious". I've always been partial to womanism which was coined in the 1980s - its about as old as cyber-feminism is. >>10129 "intersectionality" is a term with multiple operative definitions and you should really engage with their argument instead of debate semantics

>>10130 >engage with their argument instead of debate semantics There is nothing much to engage in since there was no elaboration to begin with. They only would have been fine if they didn't state things sounding like absolutes that apply to everyone or even most without any real proof. Can a gay guy be misogynistic? Yes. Are all gays misogynists? No. Are most? Ive never seen this be that much a thing. So why say "gays are misogynists" so flatly? Are all Muslims homophobes? There are a lot so probably not. Most? Maybe? At least for those in Mid East and African countries. As for trans people there are transgender Muslims even in the middle east so it wouldnt apply to all of them. The thing between trans and Islam is a bit complicated since it seems to differ country to country. The statement "regular feminists" which is kind of misleading way of describing the average feminist view as being anti transwomen. Since radical feminism is about eliminating gender roles transgenders could be both seen as an aid to or a hinderance of ending gender roles. In one way it subverts them but in another it's supporting the notion of a binary. So I was in some regards agreeing to some degree of what was said while suggesting an approach of overly generalizing falls to same faults they were critiquing. As for quotas, some places like California have blind affirmative action which is a good way of going about things since it doesnt use quotas instead it just makes things more fair by having it be about qualifications themselves while leaving out information on race and I suppose this could be taken even further where you hide names cryptographically or something so there is no way to guess a persons gender or race from their name.

>>10130 The critique of feminism by feminist anthropologists isn't just that feminism is tied too much to a Western culture but that the core aim of feminism itself is ethnocentric: the desire to preserve women's autonomy, freedom, equality, and individuality and that women have to resist patriarchy, culture, and religion as if their sense of self is in opposition to it. Feminism unconsciously universalizes a liberal notion of the subject and agency. This critique applies to womanism too and probably cyber-feminists. Its a challenge that's been ignored by most feminist theorists, except Judith Butler and Wendy Brown who briefly engaged with it. Feminism suffers from the problem of being too focused on praxis and not enough on theory or because feminists think theory should follow praxis they end up putting the cart before the horse and philosophy becomes a way of rubber stamping what they already believe. They aren't the only ones who do this but like Marxists they get hung up on dogmas they can't really justify and this incoherence only gives ammo to right wingers. >>10132 Its a common right wing talking point out how feminist commitments are contradictory (I'm not saying that anon is right wing). Usually, the response to this is what you've just said "not all gays are misogynists" or "not all Muslims are transphobes" etc. but if feminists basic idea of what it means to be a free individual is ethnocentric and they believe it to be true, then their ideology ends up being exclusivist and they have to discriminate against people who don't fit their mold. Instead, they expect those very people to willingly assimilate and run the risk of becoming imperialistic or transphobic. Feminists commitment to a very particular set of ideas contradicts their rhetoric of diversity and inclusion of indigenous people, Muslims, trans people etc. Decolonial feminists have some interesting things to say about this.

>>10133 A lot of early feminists and proto feminist movements such as the Social Purity Movement were Christians and white supremacists so it is no surprise feminism later took on traits of ethnic or religion focus by other groups, because they were being excluded or imposed on by upper class white women. I really should further research feminist an proto feminist movements more some time since there is all sorts of strange things in their history even if you completely avoid right wing misinformation. It's pretty diverse in ideology. Personally I am against feminism for being inherently contradictory in name itself and prefer egalitarianism since it lacks the bias imposed by the name "feminism" suggesting a female centric ideology.

>>10132 I can't speak for them but I think they spoke that way because they felt that, the presence of transphobia in muslim communities for instance undermined the externalization of oppression to a singular dynamic projected onto every instance of it, that they attributed to intersectionalism. but that exact argument ive actually seen used to argue *for* intersectionality, that the variance and overlapping of systems of oppression and their conceptualization entailed being able to hold multiple different worldviews with the shared desire for liberation and recognize the usefulness of some or others to conceptualizing power in one's experience. this at least was how i internalized it. >>10133 >Feminism unconsciously universalizes a liberal notion of the subject and agency aware of this but i think that critiques of subjectivity are made in the more established theories of feminism that are considered fundamental - judith butler of course being one of them but Simone de Beauvoir wrote Woman as Other, which directly engages with the subject as a male singularity and seemingly initiates that line of inquiry as well. what I'm not arguing is that these writers meaningfully incorporate the critique you've read or had in mind and I can speak from academic experience that western feminist concepts are projected onto post-colonial women's struggles with a kind of elitism as you've described, radical and marxist feminists are the first to decry liberal feminism for championing the rise of individuals (especially particular female politicians, celebrities, or CEOs) while the remainder are left below in the structure of patriarchy. I would also argue that coding most feminism as western becomes problematic when the west is consistent of cultural hierarchies, often constructed around race, and that the west as a colonial culture has subaltern cultures within it - womanism criticizes the flattening into a universalized feminism that you describe as well, I'm not sure what dismissing these categories as western doesn't do exactly what you're (rightfully) accusing feminism of. Furthermore, I would scarcely say that this sort of girlboss feminism is absent outside of the west, just take a look at the contemporary movements in China, Korea or Japan. a reality i think is that shunning feminism which focuses on the economic empowerment of women for being too capitalistic, especially when the prescription ive heard from one marxist feminist has been that those women should be in the union instead of striving for equal opportunity with men. this is superficially true, but in the way that reduces analysis to a moralized saying of the line instead of thinking critically about circumstances or really demonstrating any sort of pragmatic reasoning whatsoever. But onto the thread's subject the cyberfeminist crowd around laboria cuboniks et al intersect with object-oriented ontology, a philosophical movement attempting to subvert the subject-object relation through speculative writing on the experiences of objects and their relations at increasing degrees of alienation from humanity, which is also objects. in fact the left wing of contemporary accelerationism is largely concerned with defining acceleration as this exploration, citing post-human becomings as a departure from the westernized human subject, as well as Landian horrorism that on some level revels in or asserts that subject's loss, even as collective ideas of humanity outgrow the particular subject which would have any reason to feel threatened in the first place. I think my point is that anthropological feminism you describe sounds just as much like an intervention of the usual concerns of radical feminism into anthropology, and also that it subtly asserts western hegemony through centralization of feminist discourse to the west - anthropological feminism begins to feel like another camp of feminism within western academia, which by making reference to a non-western other as opposed when i think there are more meaningful connections to be made. my point is not to downplay the centrality of the american economy and english language to the world order but the importance of economies which are still, consistently, treated as an alien source of mysterious artifacts rather than comprehensible, complex and "developed" societies with similarities and differences to ones own, who are just as capable of doing the same anthropology to ours. tell me: was the chinese cultural revolution westernizing?

>>10135 > I can't speak for them but I think they spoke that way because they felt that, the presence of transphobia in muslim communities for instance undermined the externalization of oppression to a singular dynamic projected onto every instance of it, that they attributed to intersectionalism. but that exact argument ive actually seen used to argue *for* intersectionality, that the variance and overlapping of systems of oppression and their conceptualization entailed being able to hold multiple different worldviews with the shared desire for liberation and recognize the usefulness of some or others to conceptualizing power in one's experience. this at least was how i internalized it. I kind of got the intent just it rubbed me the wrong way as sounding zealously ideological in phrasing. There is some aspects of intersectionality that make sense but I personally find it too liberal minded making it more about identity politics rather than looking at if any of these things are connected. For example part of the cause of racism is rooted not just in tribalistic mindsets but from capitalism. You see you cant defend the inequalities in capitalism among different demographics without either admitting capitalism is flawed or try to claim these people are inherently flawed. I know Marxist Feminism connects capitalism to root of sexism instead f some abstract patriarchy but Im not familiar with how they make this connection. I do know that women started entering the work force as result of trying to expand the economy and in the case of the US they did so without even giving paid leave, which is part of why abortion choice rights became a prominent focus later on since without paid leave having a baby meant losing their job up until around the 90s when daycare and unpaid leave became a thing.

>>10136 oh yeah thats fair actually. honestly you sounded like the more reasonable person in that conversation i just got rubbed the wrong way as well because of, it felt like you were debating the nuances of a strawman neither of you had a super concrete grasp on. intersectionality the way its talked about feels like a very sanitized version of whatever was first coined, to the extent that it is only one of multiple ways of tying struggles together - there's a marxist critique of intersectionality as well as interpretations that tie it back to class. > I know Marxist Feminism connects capitalism to root of sexism instead f some abstract patriarchy but Im not familiar with how they make this connection it starts with Caliban and the witch, the idea that value is initially derived from women being the initial commodity. basically it reframes primitive accumulation as a restructuring of the family that occurred alongside witch hunts, but there are other directions or theories about the relationship between patriarchy and capital within the marxist feminist tradition.

>>10135 >aware of this but i think that critiques of subjectivity are made in the more established theories of feminism that are considered fundamental Anthropologists use 'liberal' in a different sense from theorists to refer to Euro-American worldviews not just girlboss normal person political liberalism. While feminist theorists criticize subjectivity, they still carry with them culturally particular ideas about agency and resistance which they have the tendency to see as normal. Post-human xenofeminism (sorry I'm not as well read on this) emphasize, rationalism, secularism, autonomy, equality, and freedom but these are not obviously desirable for all women in the first place. A Bedouin woman might find a lot of happiness and meaning in being subordinate to her husband and not see this as an infringement of her agency. >anthropological feminism begins to feel like another camp of feminism within western academia, which by making reference to a non-western other as opposed when i think there are more meaningful connections to be made. I don't think that's their intention. They are always trying to demonstrate commonalities between the indigenous groups they study and the feminist tradition while complicating that tradition at the same time. I get the feeling they want to contribute and expand feminist theory while pointing to its flaws. As for feminism being centeralized around the West, this is undoubtedly true. Feminists in 3rd world countries Xenofeminism is too extreme and niche to ever be practical. Feminists are like Marxists because they often don't listen to what people actually want and need and veer off into fringe theories or get hung up on handed down dogmas. I'm glad it exists because its creative and unique but a lot of these fringe forms of feminism are too abstracted from ordinary life and feel a lot less radical than they initially seem.

The manifesto strikes me as another form of rot attempting to infiltrate technology. We already have corporatism (and all its sub-cancers) and national security that subvert an individual's ability to utilise technology. This manifesto advocates for another such cancer, this time spread ideologically rather than enforced through money, but seeking to police both thought and actions. Capitalism drives humans through fear, greed, and violence. These are some of the strongest incentives that drove us for millions of years. What drives people behind this manifesto, and what would drive people in the system they'd want to create? The strength of capitalism is that it can make almost _every_ exceptional person (and that is who really matters) work towards its interests. Relying on a 'need for justice' as the driving force is comical, especially given that the people this manifesto most advocates for are despised by the majority of this planet. The timing for such a movement seems pretty poor also, given first world's full-scale shift to 'far right' traditionalism that now actively seeks to eradicate ideas like XF. I sincerely wish death to everyone behind this manifesto. Here's to hoping it finds them promptly!

>>9678 Read the whole thing and I couldn't find the answer to "What is a woman?" anywhere. Do you know the answer to this question OP?

>>10175 I think it's part of troon internal faculties that they explicitly ignore relevant, logical information because reality literally insults thems. >I'm a god >Omnipotent and infinite >"No you're not." >My ego is fractured beyond repair if I accept this information We see similar things in people who've done horrible things, they hide it deep within themselves. When those things surface many minds break, even start referring to themselves in the third person, "He killed all of those people.... I was just following orders... He didn't even regret it at the time." you can hear Ted Bundy do it in his interviews, always referring in third person when he recalls one of his victims, but otherwise speaks of himself in the first. Sometimes, accepting this information can even have extreme physical symptoms, the most common is immediate evacuatory emesis to include even diahrrea - A wholly physical response to wholly psychological issues. Imagine being a tranny. Imagine being told by everyone and culture, in their niceties and friendly support, that you are 100% normal and your reality is 100% true. To accept criticism would mean you ruined your body, ruined your life, ruined your soul, ruined your friendships, ruined your entire prospects of living life how you envisioned it with the naivete of a child that lends to the most beautiful discoveries this life has to offer - And all of those prospects become null. It's not our responsibility, nor is it possible to fix them at this stage. Have sympathy and accept this culture as an attack vector, and most of these individuals as victims. When a civillian loses both legs to a bomb, our abject pride lends to our rage the initiative to change the world around us. Unfortunately for troons, that also means berating them as unnatural, even telling them to sudoku, because it's wholly unacceptable to allow them to spread lies and perpetuate their mental illness. If they do neither and shut the fuarrrk up, I really do hope they find happiness.

>>10179 >they explicitly ignore relevant, logical information because reality literally insults thems. If you mean they ignore you when you insult them, by oh so helpfully pointing out something they've been told and almost certainly thought about a billion times before... gosh I wonder why. If you mean that they ignore information when it's presented in a non-insulting way, it really depends. A "troon", which here I am going to take as meaning the type of trans person that will defend ludicrous statements or join hate mobs on twitter, are really no more brainwashed than any other believer in an ideology. Look at communists, anticommunists, fascists, antifascists, capitalists, anticapitalists, racists, antiracists, troons, antitroons, etc. It is impossible to stay true to an ideology without heavy cognitive biases, because the world just can't be reduced to a few basic principles outlined in a persuasive pamphlet. Most organized ideologies explicitly encourage their followers to employ cognitive bias. Your criticism here boils down to stating that troonery is an ideology. That is true and it is a valid criticism, as it is a valid criticism of any ideology, especially one that so thoroughly wrecks peoples' lives as troonerism; however, being trans does not imply being a troon, and you reveal your own biases by stating it is so. >Imagine being a tranny. Imagine being told by everyone and culture, in their niceties and friendly support, that you are 100% normal and your reality is 100% true. Very very few trannies have had this experience. Probably none. Main reason being that somebody like you is always around. >To accept criticism would mean you ruined your body, ruined your life, ruined your soul, ruined your friendships, ruined your entire prospects of living life how you envisioned it with the naivete of a child that lends to the most beautiful discoveries this life has to offer - And all of those prospects become null. Most trans or nonbinary people I've met IRL seem to be doing fine. Especially those who aren't cut off from their families. You say they ruined their prospects of living life "how they envisioned it", but I think here you mean how *you* envision it. Many trans people report that, as children, they would fantasize about being the other gender/sex as an adult. Also, keep in mind that any adult who takes the plunge and starts HRT has already thought deeply about the decision, more deeply than you have. Anyone who gets surgery has almost surely been outwardly presenting as their preferred sex for a long time and is very sure of the decision. >Unfortunately for troons, that also means berating them as unnatural, even telling them to sudoku, because it's wholly unacceptable to allow them to spread lies and perpetuate their mental illness. Ah, so you're *helping* them. Of course. How noble.

>>10190 troon here. I for one wish that more people in my life had told me to kill myself when I mentioned trans stuff to them. I think my life would have gone a lot better if they had. If you know a troon, or someone who seems on the edge, let them know that its the dumbest stupid idea ever and that they shouldn't even think about trooning it out.

>>10191 >troon here your post is anti-troon, so you aren't a troon. You are possibly trans and you almost certainly didn't read my post.

>>10192 no I am a troon. Thats our word no matter how you decide to redefine it. My post is anti trans, anti tranny, anti troon and anti you, because you seem to think that just because I keep my seething anger and regret bottled up in public means I don't every day wish I could undo the horrible things I have done to myself.

>>10193 Even if you hate yourself that doesn't justify hating other people.

>>10194 I like to think I hate no one, not even myself. If I tell a borderline tranny or tranny to kill him or her self, I do it out of a legitimate desire for them to have a good life. That sounds like trolling but it is not at all. But what really ruffles my feathers is when bozos like you try to normalize what is such an obviously deviant thing. The hell are you thinking ? Quit it!

>>10190 >Very very few trannies have had this experience Is that how you would describe Ru Paul's Drag Race existing unquestioned for 15 years? It was only when troons starting being vocal that everyone started shutting them down. >70s happened in the USA >There are popular songs considered classics about being a tranny >No one cares, trannies are accepted >~2015 happens >I DEMAND MORE ATTENTION! >"Kill yourself troon." >NOOOO I'M BEING TORTURED TO DEATH Literally no one cared in the USA until trannies demanded recognition on their drivers license, forcing everyone else(See: Common Law) to adhere to their trash. Nearly eevery issue paraded by the trans community was invented by them wholesale. Once again, classic music ingrained in american culture accepts trannies. Their persecution complex is the nature of their persecution.

>>10203 The music you are referring to presents at best an oblique and cryptic confession by the songwriter, which says next to nothing about the popular culture in general. It is because the main thrust of everything is opposite to this that you have to cherry pick such petty examples to support your teetering and feeble simulacrum of a point. For what its worth, if you want a decent literary treatment of transgenderism, consider reading the novel 'King Rat', admittedly by an Australian, but still a fine book. The trans stuff is secondary, or perhaps quatrinary to the plot, but its present and has received some positive remarks from trannies. Novel from 1962, and they made a movie of it a little later, whether the trans stuff was present still, I know not.

>10175 They are gender abolitionists so providing a definition of women would go against their aims. You could argue that gender abolitionism can lead to arbitrariness or nihilism or that a feminist politics that takes "woman" as a baseline but refuses to define it is incoherent. Just pointing out that they don't define woman is not really engaging with their points even if you are just out to refute them.

why do all the good threads get derailed by irrelevant hatred for le troons

>>10207 People see a discussion and have opinions but don't know how to express themselves so they just brew soykaf instead of being honest. So "I don't like transgenderism because it feels like validating a mental illness" becomes spamming schizo soykaf about troons.

>>10203 weird headcanon but ok https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-modern-electoral-history-of-transphobia

>>10214 Article is misleading. Transphobia was promoted by feminists and the mainstream gay rights movement for years. Some conservative cultures used to be more welcoming of transsexuals back in the 70s and 80s. Also calling HIV/AIDS neglect genocidal is ridiculous, they also let hemophiliacs, drug addicts, and blacks die. The demographic with the highest body count are black Africans. The reason for trans hate is pretty simple. Activists are trying to redefine gender and sex and attack gender roles. This effects heterosexual normal people who find meaning in those gender roles and don't want them seen torn down. That kind of hypocritical just ignore capitalism brand of social activism gets popular with middle management types who begin shoving policies down people's throats and policing their employees. Its a classic case of a bunch of narrow minded activists not listening to people and thinking they know what's best for society. Along come anti-trans activists who leverage the negative reaction for their own reasons.

this thread is filled with rather mean people

>>10208 The troon movement became an ideology and is used by activists and politicians to control the left since OWS. Of course, it push thousand of healthy young people into positions where suicide become the best option but that's a price they are willing to pay. Opposing such a political movement is a social duty.

>>10215 >Some conservative cultures used to be more welcoming of transsexuals back in the 70s and 80s. Correct, and there are some cultures (Hawaiian is a good example) that retain their traditions of thinking about gender as more than just sex, sometimes in spite of being converted to mormonism. Although it is worth noting that this doesn't mean that they have much in common with your typical trans-flag-waving, internet-addicted neotrans, or that they'd even consider it transsexuality, the way they used to think about it is very different. In modern times of course everything distinct about the culture is slowly being eroded away. >That kind of hypocritical just ignore capitalism brand of social activism gets popular with middle management types who begin shoving policies down people's throats and policing their employees. Very true. I think also, there is the fact that "punk" became so deeply bowdlerized, so that many things that used to be associated with living on the fringes of society, like rejecting traditional gender roles, became something cool and hip to do. I think it is without question that more people are trans now than ever before, but I think this is mainly a response to the intense commodification of gender, and the fact that many kids are raised more by Capital than by their parents. Boys wear blue, girls wear pink. Boys get boy toys, girls get girl toys. Without someone to actually teach you how to be a man or how to be a woman, you might start thinking all there is are these hollow, commodified gender roles, and many parents just don't teach their kids, either because they're too busy or they're too drunk or they think it's some kind of social good. Also the fact that many families in western countries are completely isolated from the community, leading to an unnatural state where only the parents are allowed to raise their children, exacerbating the issue. The current wave of transsexuality is, I think, a reaction to a change in what gender means, which has been brought about by Capital, and would not be so popular otherwise.