Men in Ewes' Clothing: The Stealth Politics of the Transgender Movement

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://luceononuro1.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the-stealth-politics-of-the-transgender-movement.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibk4mB4Mr1AhX-kYkEHb73C24QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2fmwY1R1YW6Kew5DcHFoLB

An downloadable PDF archived from "A Women's Journal". It talks about how identity politics are in and of itself a political statement, how analyzing said politics is NOT intolerance, and how the act of showing off a penis at a women's safe space at a festival proves the politics being expressed by feminism are not understood at all.

It also debunks things attributed to radical feminist thought, which are actually smears.

Not so much an attack on Transgenderism, as it is an attack on Libertarianism and the concept of inclusion for inclusions sake (As the writer says, if they wanted to be inclusive they'd have invited any man walking down the street. Inclusion isn't the point.)

Worth reading imo.

As far as I can tell, a ewe is a source of wool, mutton and milk.

Also, they're cute and lovely. 🙂

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://luceononuro1.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the-stealth-politics-of-the-transgender-movement.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibk4mB4Mr1AhX-kYkEHb73C24QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2fmwY1R1YW6Kew5DcHFoLB

An downloadable PDF archived from "A Women's Journal". It talks about how identity politics are in and of itself a political statement, how analyzing said politics is NOT intolerance, and how the act of showing off a penis at a women's safe space at a festival proves the politics being expressed by feminism are not understood at all.

It also debunks things attributed to radical feminist thought, which are actually smears.

Not so much an attack on Transgenderism, as it is an attack on Libertarianism and the concept of inclusion for inclusions sake (As the writer says, if they wanted to be inclusive they'd have invited any man walking down the street. Inclusion isn't the point.)

Worth reading imo.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://luceononuro1.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the-stealth-politics-of-the-transgender-movement.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibk4mB4Mr1AhX-kYkEHb73C24QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2fmwY1R1YW6Kew5DcHFoLB

An downloadable PDF archived from "A Women's Journal". It talks about how identity politics are in and of itself a political statement, how analyzing said politics is NOT intolerance, and how the act of showing off a penis at a women's safe space at a festival proves the politics being expressed by feminism are not understood at all.

It also debunks things attributed to radical feminist thought, which are actually smears.

Not so much an attack on Transgenderism, as it is an attack on Libertarianism and the concept of inclusion for inclusions sake (As the writer says, if they wanted to be inclusive they'd have invited any man walking down the street. Inclusion isn't the point.)

Worth reading imo.

Libertarianism is directly against the idea of coercive inclusion - freedom of association is integral to the libertarian paradigm.

This is one of the reasons the civil rights movement is so heavily critiqued by the libertarian crowd.

So libertarianism strives towards a lawlessness society but tries it's best to stay capitalist?

Sounds like anarcho-communism with money.

Originally posted by Blakemore
So libertarianism strives towards a lawlessness society but tries it's best to stay capitalist?

Sounds like anarcho-communism with money.

The idea that anarchy is lawless is a misconception, intentionally created by the state so people would stay in the mindset that the state is necessary and natural.

Anarchy means without rulers, thus people are able to act freely.

Surely you don't think it's the case that the majority of people don't murder because the government says not to.

Nor do I think you believe that you think laws against murder actually stop people from being killed. Put another way, murderers will murder regardless of laws saying not to.

eBay is anarchical.
it created a common sense set of guidelines (laws) and if people don't follow them they're ostracized from the eBay trading process.

Many other everyday environments are the same way: restaurants (no shirt, no shoes, no service), banks (security guards) , baseball games (no shirt, no shoes, no service, and they have security guards.), etc.

Anarcho-communism gets alot of the political theory correct, but completely fails economically, hence why interdisciplinarian thought it so crucial to the evolution of ideas.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://luceononuro1.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the-stealth-politics-of-the-transgender-movement.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibk4mB4Mr1AhX-kYkEHb73C24QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2fmwY1R1YW6Kew5DcHFoLB

An downloadable PDF archived from "A Women's Journal". It talks about how identity politics are in and of itself a political statement, how analyzing said politics is NOT intolerance, and how the act of showing off a penis at a women's safe space at a festival proves the politics being expressed by feminism are not understood at all.

It also debunks things attributed to radical feminist thought, which are actually smears.

Not so much an attack on Transgenderism, as it is an attack on Libertarianism and the concept of inclusion for inclusions sake (As the writer says, if they wanted to be inclusive they'd have invited any man walking down the street. Inclusion isn't the point.)

Worth reading imo.

Always irritated me in Parks & Rec when Amy Poehler's character would demand inclusion into what she deemed to be 'boys club' stuff and nobody ever brought up the fact she never once invited any of the guys to one of her 'Galentine's day' brunches.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
The idea that anarchy is lawless is a misconception, intentionally created by the state so people would stay in the mindset that the state is necessary and natural.

Anarchy means without rulers, thus people are able to act freely.

Surely you don't think it's the case that the majority of people don't murder because the government says not to.

Nor do I think you believe that you think laws against murder actually stop people from being killed. Put another way, murderers will murder regardless of laws saying not to.

eBay is anarchical.
it created a common sense set of guidelines (laws) and if people don't follow them they're ostracized from the eBay trading process.

Many other everyday environments are the same way: restaurants (no shirt, no shoes, no service), banks (security guards) , baseball games (no shirt, no shoes, no service, and they have security guards.), etc.

Anarcho-communism gets alot of the political theory correct, but completely fails economically, hence why interdisciplinarian thought it so crucial to the evolution of ideas.

I guess you like the idea that the one with the biggest cheque always wins.

I do not click on suspicious links. But from the description, it sounds like some TERF shit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I do not click on suspicious links. But from the description, it sounds like some TERF shit.

if a white person changed their skin color and wanted in on safe spaces for blacks, there would be no question why that's wrong.

Yet women should be expected to accept a penis in their space, when all they want is a space safe from penis's.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Anarchy is lawlessness. Akin to say chimpanzees in the wild. It's a flawed ideology because some kind of social hierarchy will eventually materialise.

I guess you like the idea that the one with the biggest cheque always wins.

Anarchy is not lawlessness, if the non aggression principle is viewed as axiomatic, which it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Social heirarchies aren't formed or maintained via violence, the way political organizations are, they're formed voluntarily.

Originally posted by cdtm
if a white person changed their skin color and wanted in on safe spaces for blacks, there would be no question why that's wrong.

Yet women should be expected to accept a penis in their space, when all they want is a space safe from penis's.

WTF why you're saying I can't do black face anymore because it's wrong ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Anarchy is not lawlessness, if the non aggression principle is viewed as axiomatic, which it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Social heirarchies aren't formed or maintained via violence, the way political organizations are, they're formed voluntarily.

History would like to have word with you about forced social hierarchies my friend.

Originally posted by cdtm
if a white person changed their skin color and wanted in on safe spaces for blacks, there would be no question why that's wrong.

Yet women should be expected to accept a penis in their space, when all they want is a space safe from penis's.

Originally posted by Newjak
😂 😆 😂 😆

History would like to have word with you about forced social hierarchies my friend.

By social I mean voluntary.
So do tell me about how people are forced into voluntary organizations.

You think up is down, huh, bud ?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Transracial rights are human rights! *Insert a goofy emoji of a raised fist*

Eventually trans-everything will be accepted when we're all jacked into to whatever comes after meta (Facebook)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
By social I mean voluntary.
So do tell me about how people are forced into voluntary organizations.

You think up is down, huh, bud ?

Seriously man so everything you think works is perfect peaceful cooperation and everything you hate is forced adherence.

Either way whatever terminology war you want to get into is fine but I think you're missing the main point. Is that if you exist in a lawless land what keeps the social hierarchies from becoming political organizations? Also how do political organizations form in the first place?

Originally posted by Newjak
So you've chosen specific definitions that create a favorable foundation while ignoring that foundation crumbles in reality?

Seriously man so everything you think works is perfect peaceful cooperation and everything you hate is forced adherence.

Either way whatever terminology war you want to get into is fine but I think you're missing the main point. Is that if you exist in a lawless land what keeps the social hierarchies from becoming political organizations? Also how do political organizations form in the first place?

Kmc is an anarchy.
You're here voluntarily, and so am I. There's no cops or government here, but there is a hierarchy because mods have more privileges than regular users.
I defer to the mods judgements because they know the rules better than me.

Welcome to anarchy.

Political organizations form through violence.
That's why America and Australia are offshoots of the UK.
The boundaries of countries are like the chalk outlines drawn around dead bodies at a crime seen.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Kmc is an anarchy.
You're here voluntarily, and so am I. There's no cops or government here, but there is a hierarchy because mods have more privileges than regular users.
I defer to the mods judgements because they know the rules better than me.

Welcome to anarchy.

Political organizations form through violence.
That's why America and Australia are offshoots of the UK.
The boundaries of countries are like the chalk outlines drawn around dead bodies at a crime seen.

Yes and the mods of the power to ban people which is a hostile action to them. Therefore it is organized and has all the base foundations of government laid into it. KMC as rules and laws that have to be followed. There are people given power to enforce those rules and law. The only difference is you choose to see self created organizations and governments as different even though from a basic operation standpoint they aren't.

The only thing that changes about them is scope.

Originally posted by Newjak
😂 😂 😆 😂 😆

Yes and the mods of the power to ban people which is a hostile action to them. Therefore it is organized and has all the base foundations of government laid into it. KMC as rules and laws that have to be followed. There are people given power to enforce those rules and law. The only difference is you choose to see self created organizations and governments as different even though from a basic operation standpoint they aren't.

The only thing that changes about them is scope.

So you don't think there's a difference between the relationship you have with a close personal friend and a senator ?