I veered off because it seems like a bigger issue, I was gonna come back around. It’s a conversation it’s how conversation usually tends to work when it’s just two people talking to one another rather than reddit culture debate bro shit or the soapboxing people do where they talk past someone to the audience instead of to the person they’re actually responding to.

Are people born inherently feminine or masculine or not ? It being 3d doesn’t seem to matter here but rather that feminine and masculine being a component of gender at all forces me to ask the question. Either the answer is yes which is all kinds of fucked up, or the answer is no and we’ve found a component of gender that you agree is socially created.

This chart concerns me. Are you saying that “being masculine” and “being feminine” are biological? Not just gender? Can you define “being masculine” and “being feminine” without being gender-essentialist?

I’m veering off a bit, because we weren’t talking about masculinity or femininity at all a moment ago, but these are 100% socially created things and to argue about them from a biological perspective requires being a gender-essentialist.

If not, I would err away from “masculine” and “feminine” as descriptors of gender itself.

I keep saying I do and you keep saying I don’t.

I don’t know what part of this youis being misunderstood so I’m trying to simplify and make clear.

1. People with NO gender are not the same as people who are genderfluid or non-binary or binary.

2. If your position is that gender is biologically intrinsic, you are absolutely excluding people with the absence of gender.

3. If you still believe those people are trans, but do not believe their interpretation is correct, then you do not believe their stated lack of gender.

These are roughly the things I’m trying to get across here. This is where the contradiction I am raising lies.

Yes. You did. When you reworded your “I believe all trans people” to “believe all trans people are trans” you did that explicitly because you were highlighting believing them on the trans part but not on the rest.

If you don’t believe that they are not genderfluid, or that they are genderless (because you believe that gender is biologically intrinsic), then you do not believe their stated gender.

You believe they’re trans but don’t believe their stated gender? So you want? Secretly misgender them inside your head?

I’m being intentionally uncharitable here because I don’t think you’ve examined this and really think you should. I do not think you’re a bad person, just that you haven’t yet examined these contradictions.

What I’m telling you is that you’re stating things that are incompatible views.

You can’t “believe all trans people” while explicitly saying that you disagree with trans people who say they have no gender, or trans people that say they are not gender fluid and very much feel like they can and have changed gender at a later point in life.

These are not compatible things. One of these things MUST be untrue.

You want to by hyper-inclusive and nice to all people, I get that you don’t want to exclude people which is why you are saying “I believe all trans people” (because you’re not a bad person). But at the same time you are stating a position that is not open to a certain position, largely for good reasons, you are defensive about how it could be used to harm us and have a naturally protective reaction that wants to reject the very idea of it because of the danger it also opens us up to. This has explicitly been the only reason you’ve presented for opposing it “this could be used to argue in favour of conversion therapy” - purely a position taken from a trans activism perspective. What I am trying to get at is that you shouldn’t approach this from the trans activism position but rather than from a philosophical perspective analysing gender.

Doing a “I don’t wanna talk to you anymore” doesn’t make any of the things I’ve pointed out here any less true. You can’t hold incompatible positions simultaneously. They need to be more deeply examined.

You can’t “believe all trans people” while also not believing the trans people who say their experience is not gender fluidity but an actual mid-life change in gender.

Ultimately you can only be one or the other.

As for those people without dysphoria, several of them will openly say they think they can choose one or the other, but prefer one, but don’t think this is the same as gender fluidity. Are they wrong?

“I believe all trans people” while having a biological gender essentialist belief is not possible.

I am seriously interested in gender abolitionist takes that aren’t just abolishing the strict roles/styles/behaviors affiliated with gender. I don’t think you can provide this

This is the basis for literally all cyberpunk and transhumanist takes on gender as the elimination of biological limitations turns the entire of sexuality into something of an avatar swap. If you’ve spent any time in VR, where some insight into behaviours of people and culture has played out, you start to get a sense for where this could go. What gender is that person with the smoke avatar? No gender. Which, for the record here, is a gender that a lot of people say they already are, which does not at all fit into the gender biological essentialism. You NEED to exclude people who say they have no gender at all (not non-binary, those with explicitly no gender) in order to fit this concept together.

Frankly, I’m kind of growing tired of discussing trans issues with cis people

I am not cis. Not sure why you’ve decided this, fucking disgusting response and the reason I waited days to bother responding to this tbh. The way this part of your response makes me feel is unlikely to ever go away when I see you elsewhere on this site, wtf were you thinking.

I believe all trans people.

I want to say, once again, that this is a platitude. It does not fit into the view that you’re taking. You genuinely can’t believe all trans people while having this view.

This reasoning errs much too close to bio-essentialism for me, it’s the same line of thinking that leads people to “you have to have dysphoria or you’re not trans”.

I think this lacks an open mind. This reaction isn’t that surprising though, I do get why you and other people are very invested in this. I think you’re too wedded to gender overall though, I find the camp of trans people writing about the idea that eventually society will enter a post-gender phase to be the most compelling theory. If gender can be abolished then it can also change.

2million people were victims of american murderers. The americans like to forget that their foreign policy and behaviour of their military is basically identical to the IDF.

AI you can trust

Lost me there

Easily summarize emails

Haha “Give us access to all your emails for data and corporate espionage we pwomise nothing bad will be done with it!”

Cool. Use the marxist game for marxist causes.

Here’s a relevant hexbear post made shortly after Oct 7th:

https://hexbear.net/post/851674/4118732

“Cure” is loaded language. Your gender doesn’t need curing, your gender is what it is.

If it can be changed, then yes perhaps it can be intentionally changed. But what the mechanisms are for that to occur are absolutely not understood and any attempt to forcibly do so to anyone should be considered a violation of human rights.

I don’t disagree with the reasoning everyone has for being extremely defensive about this possibility, I just also don’t really rule it out as solidly as many others do. I get it though. I do understand why people have such a reaction to this and want it to be untrue. I feel like we don’t really understand any of it though. We’ve barely scratched the surface.

I also think a lot of the research is trying to confirm the idea that people are born this way. IE working from the conclusion. Because the science is performed by those with a desire for it to be the outcome because it’s the safest outcome for trans people. I’m not really convinced all of it is good.

I don’t know. I’ve just seen a lot of change in myself in my life and am open to the idea that we’re not as fixed as we believe. And of course that that’s OKAY and doesn’t change anything about how people should be treated or viewed.

If they say they were made trans by life circumstances, I would tell them that that is likely not true, but I would never dictate someone’s gender.

I think it’s worthwhile remaining open to this but not really valuable to trans people to like make it part of activism or anything. There are enough instances of people saying things like their sexuality has completely shifted for me to be open to the idea that what gender we’re attracted to can change. I don’t think we know enough about being trans to be certain one way or another, trans people however have a very understandable defensive reaction to this because we don’t want it to be weaponised against us as “fake” or whatever.

Removed by mod

The YPG are the largest armed faction of the SDF, they’ve been working with the US for a while to steal Syria’s oil but this is a new level of yikes

More anarchist concentration camps.

Has the fastfetch dev ever mentioned why they use the infinity symbol? Don’t want to find out later on that it’s a dogwhistle.

would mean another genocide

No it wouldn’t. You are saying EXACTLY the same thing that people said about the end of South African apartheid. Everyone claimed it would be a genocide for white people.

It was not.

And it will not be in Palestine either.

You are indistinguishable from the people who opposed the end of apartheid in South Africa.

The positions are elected by a vote at the supreme soviet assembly, those positions are elected by the soviets (councils) below the assembly, and those are elected by the soviets below that, and so on down to the lowest level where the local constituents vote.

In the party it’s generally considered a “duty” though, especially among those that participated in the revolution like Stalin who treated loyalty to the organisation, self-sacrifice and subordination to it as a significant and necessary part of what made the revolution succeed. Thousands of people literally sacrificing their whole lives for the goal.

As such, Stalin wouldn’t break a decision of the assembly just as he wouldn’t want anyone else to. If they said they still needed him in his post he did his duty and stayed despite not wanting to.

He largely held equal powers to everyone else on the Council of Ministers, the position of Chairman didn’t have special powers. The General Secretary role of the party was invented by Lenin with the intention of it being used to break opposition in the party (perform purges). Once Stalin had successfully performed his purges and prevented split in the country/civil-war he saw the position as having completed its purpose and wanted rid of it, he didn’t like the cult of personality around himself and wanted people to view the government in a collective capacity rather than an individual leader kind of way. That’s obviously not what ended up being the perception though. Lots of hero worship got in the way.

Voices: Correct! Vote!

Rykov: There is a proposal to vote.

Voices: Yes, yes!

Rykov: We are voting. Who is for comrade Stalin’s proposal to abolish the post of General Secretary? Who is opposed? Who abstains? Noone.

October 16, 1952 (http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1954-2/succession-to-stalin/succession-to-stalin-texts/stalin-on-enlarging-the-central-committee/):

This article was taken from the Russian newspaper Glasnost devoted to the 120th Anniversary of Stalin’s birth, was the last speech at the CC [Central Committee] CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] before Stalin died. The text was being published for the very first time in the Soviet Union…

…MOLOTOV – [Glasnost -] coming to the speaker’s tribune completely admits his mistakes before the CC, but he stated that he is and will always be a faithful disciple of Stalin.

STALIN – (interrupting Molotov) This is nonsense. I have no students at all. We are all students of the great Lenin.

[Glasnost -] Stalin suggested that they continue the agenda point by point and elect comrades into different committees of state.

With no Politburo, there is now elected a Presidium of the CC CPSU in the enlarged CC and in the Secretariat of the CC CPSU altogether 36 members.

In the new list of those elected are all members of the old Politbiuro – except that of comrade A. A. Andreev who, as everyone knows now is unfortunately completely deaf and thus can not function.

VOICE FROM THE FLOOR – We need to elect comrade Stalin as the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

STALIN – No! I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts!

MALENKOV – coming to the tribune: Comrades! We should all unanimously ask comrade Stalin, our leader and our teacher, to be again the General Secretary of the CC CPSU.

Same attempt (A. I. Mgeladze, Stalin. Kakim ia ego znal. Strannitsy nedavnogo poshlogo. p. 118):

At the first Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] of the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] called after the XIX Congress of the Party (I had been elected member of the CC and took part in the work of this Plenum), Stalin really did present the question of General Secretary of the CC CPSU, or of the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. He referred to his age, overwork, said that other cadres had cropped up and there were people to replace him, for example, N.I. Bulganin could be appointed as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, but the CC members did not grant his request, all insisted that comrade Stalin remain at both positions.