Comments

2

ConquestOfToast wrote

Because Natalie is clearly struggling to synthesize these opposing views of gender, which is honestly kind of the trans femme experience. She chastizes Natalie for not having the answers while purporting that Marxist feminism is "the only way". She consistently and subversively equates trans women with women. And while maybe ideologically true, the experiences differ wildly. She does just as much of a piss poor job of explaining the differences between the experience of womanhood from a cis and trans perspective, blaming capitalist constructs for there construction, without addressing gender division even within early civilizations. She blames Natalie's inability on her background in philosophical academia despite having the same background and blindsighted rhetoric. Honestly what this boils down to is yet another woman blaming trans women for their inability to conceptualize the concept and history of womanhood while offering a defunct and frankly incomplete analysis of that experience. It's patronizing, and frankly complete horseshit.

2

ConquestOfToast wrote

I don't think it's giving in to the comfort side. Like this is something I've noticed within trans communities, they're still wildly transmisogynistic, so a trans femmes safety is determined not only by there femininity within society at large, but it must be subversive enough within radical communities to be accepted. There basically isn't a place that's safe for us, this narrative that we're all in this together is horseshit, so we're left trying to figure it out by ourselves, when support is perpetually this tenuous thing to be given only if I'm womanly enough. Like we can argue all day what "womanhood" actually is, but what it comes down to is I only have access to it so long as I'm saying and doing the things my community wants me to. It's isolating, and when you're isolated safety is the first priority. I don't know if that's her experience, but I've found myself having the same arguments with myself on an almost daily basis, and it's fueled by that reproduction of transmisogyny in my environment. Like I'm personally not concerned with the revolution, I think it's a bad ideological concept, I don't have the power or means to make the lives of other trans femmes easier or harder. And I think it's disingenuous to claim that she can.

Reply to comment by /u/Ant in Pronouns | ContraPoints by /u/Tequila_Wolf

2

ConquestOfToast wrote

I think the issue here is that there isn't a great way to discuss how gender is made. It seems contrapoints views gender as a collaboration between 2 characters, the individual, and everyone else. And it's only through consensus of these 2 characters can the construct of gender persist, that gender exists in a space not purely individual or societal, with both characters able to invoke or revoke it. I think she's trying to peg that tension, the dialogue between what is lived and what is said. I think it also gets her into trouble because it can very easily be taken as an objective claim as opposed to simply trying to describe an experience. I might also be totally overthinking this, as I am wont to do.

1

ConquestOfToast wrote

I've always been mildly dissociative, and I would have a period or 2 of voices and small hallucinations like shadows but only at times of intense stress, but those episodes are rare. Even then I never "lost track" they were annoying but that's it. Lately though when I talk to people it's like my brain just fogs up, I lose track of what I'm thinking, and I struggle to keep the confusion at Bay. The other night I straight up slipped into word salad. It was fucking nonsense, all of it, just a series of words with no sentence structure or meaning, and then the anger set in. I felt confused, and mad, and I couldn't communicate.

2

ConquestOfToast wrote

Frankly involved doxxing requires a solid intuition. Using pieces of info as place markers, recognizing regional jargon, tearing apart local speech and expression. Doxxing someone who's aware and engaged in security culture is difficult because it requires a specific creativity, patience, and loose logic to confirm anything.

1

ConquestOfToast wrote

But they aren't doing it at the scales that would be needed to cool the climate. Weather engineering has been around for a hot second, but not on a global scale. It's going to be a terrifying decade.

1

ConquestOfToast wrote

Look I'm not very good at explaining it, it was briefly explained to me by someone with a PhD in anthropology and I'm sure my parroting of it was lacking and devoid of meaningful context. I know that's the obvious answer, and if anticiv could be debunked by a comment online then it wouldn't be around anymore. I felt that was fairly obvious.

1

ConquestOfToast wrote

I wish I could remember the names. I'm still waiting to hear back from a friend. But the gist from what I remember is that early city style communities we're largely egalitarian, and the shift to more strict power hierarchies was due to various invasions by outside forces. It's not to say that civilization can't lead to power hierarchies as it clearly has, just that from an athropological perspective, power hiearchies aren't necessitated by civ.

1

ConquestOfToast wrote

I also feel utopian anarchists have this weird like obsession with cultural Erasure. Typically white anarchists just don't seem to be capable of imagining multiple Utopias born from different cultural contexts. The values of these Utopias are either too vague as to be of any use, or so specific that it's clearly eurocentric. And that doesn't sit right with me.