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

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

We're talking about groups of humans organizing themselves to do and meet goals. For instance KMC is organized around people chatting with each other. Yes it is voluntary interaction but you must adhere to the rules of the forums to be able to participate and those rules need to be enforced.

Those foundational pieces are very similar to state governing bodies. The scope and size is different.

If you got rid of all current governments they would be replaced by different organizing bodies and they would probably end similar to what we already. At least terms of function.

Originally posted by Newjak
Well we aren't talking about one human communicating with one other human are we.

We're talking about groups of humans organizing themselves to do and meet goals. For instance KMC is organized around people chatting with each other. Yes it is voluntary interaction but you must adhere to the rules of the forums to be able to participate and those rules need to be enforced.

Those foundational pieces are very similar to state governing bodies. The scope and size is different.

If you got rid of all current governments they would be replaced by different organizing bodies and they would probably end similar to what we already. At least terms of function.

There would still be rules in an anarchic society.
It would based on private property.
If we lived in a private property order then my house would be my domain, with my rules, and if you entered my home you would either follow the rules or be asked to leave. That's voluntarily.

The state says I have to pay taxes, I can't choose not to, thus it's involuntary.
If I continue to not pay them then they come arrest me and throw me in a cage with rapists and murderers. Not the same at all.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
There would still be rules in an anarchic society.
It would based on private property.
If we lived in a private property order then my house would be my domain, with my rules, and if you entered my home you would either follow the rules or be asked to leave. That's voluntarily.

The state says I have to pay taxes, I can't choose not to, thus it's involuntary.
If I continue to not pay them then they come arrest me and throw me in a cage with rapists and murderers. Not the same at all.

Originally posted by Newjak
😂 😆 😂 😆
And just for fun how does one acquire private property in this world you've concocted?

Same way we both do.
Either by mixing our labor with natural resources i.e. putting a hunk of wood on a lathe and making a vase, or by trading for it.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Same way we both do.
Either by mixing our labor with natural resources i.e. putting a hunk of wood on a lathe and making a vase, or by trading for it.

How do you acquire this domain?

Originally posted by Newjak
And specifically for land? That's what I'm interested in.

How do you acquire this domain?

By what is called original appropriation. John Locke described it as finding unowned land then erecting a fence, the land inside is yours.

However we live in a world where ownership already exists, so the state could sell all of their massive land holdings to private owners then let the free market go.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
By what is called original appropriation. John Locke described it as finding unowned land then erecting a fence, the land inside is yours.

However we live in a world where ownership already exists, so the state could sell all of their massive land holdings to private owners then let the free market go.

Also original appropriation is garbage because in no way does it actually bind it too you if no one wants to follow that rule.

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.

"Woman" is not synonymous with "female." It is a social category that includes both cisgender and transgender people who identify with the social role "woman."

There may be some merit to segregating spaces by sex when people share them in the nude. And there may be some merit to segregating spaces by gender identity when the purpose is to discuss shared experiences.

But neither of those are "safe spaces," and no one is administering a DNA test as a condition of entry, so it is a really weak argument.

Originally posted by Newjak
So then the ones with the most money would get the most land and thus the most power...

Also original appropriation is garbage because in no way does it actually bind it too you if no one wants to follow that rule.

His entire ideology is incoherent, because without governments, there is no agreed upon currency.

Corporations used to pay workers with company-issued notes that could only be redeemed at company-owned businesses. They were completely useless outside of that ecosystem, because nobody else recognized it as legal tender. It is why so many workers were unable to build generational wealth. They could not buy land or houses, because they were not paid in actual money. They lived in a tract home provided by the company, and spent all of their earnings at businesses owned by the company.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
His entire ideology is incoherent, because without governments, there is no agreed upon currency.

Corporations used to pay workers with company-issued notes that could only be redeemed at company-owned businesses. They were completely useless outside of that ecosystem, because nobody else recognized it as legal tender. It is why so many workers were unable to build generational wealth. They could not buy land or houses, because they were not paid in actual money. They lived in a tract home provided by the company, and spent all of their earnings at businesses owned by the company.

It's also why even if you get rid of "governments and the state" other ones would just take place because you need governing bodies to enforce social constructs like currency and laws.

If corporations were the ones to step into that void it would be like going back to feudal lord systems.

Originally posted by Newjak
So then the ones with the most money would get the most land and thus the most power...

Also original appropriation is garbage because in no way does it actually bind it too you if no one wants to follow that rule.

Correct, but they have the most money because they provided the most value to people, who traded for something they valued more than their money.

Originally appropriated land is binded to you by your ability to defend it, hence why self defense is a legitimate form of violence and why libertarianism focuses on the INITIATION of violence.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Woman" is not synonymous with "female." It is a social category that includes both cisgender and transgender people who identify with the social role "woman."

There may be some merit to segregating spaces by sex when people share them in the nude. And there may be some merit to segregating spaces by gender identity when the purpose is to discuss shared experiences.

But neither of those are "safe spaces," and no one is administering a DNA test as a condition of entry, so it is a really weak argument.

See, this is why I wish you'd read the article. It would do a far better job of explaining it then I could.

But it does go into how feminism is as much about head spaces as biological realities. A side feature next to the main article is a feminist explaining how if she was raised in a butch community, she could as easily been chasing after ideals of butch masculinity instead of her anti-patriarchial ambitions.

I'm still digesting the article myself, there is a lot to take in and I'm not certain I'll ever grasp it all. But I do see the main criticism of a pre-op trans woman stripping naked in a shower with feminist women who weren't really conditioned to accept that, at an event who's purpose was to get away from male violence.

From the context, it sounds like this particular trans individual was intentionally flouting his organ as a statement, and inadvertently trampled on people suffering from their own issued related to the organ in question.

Originally posted by Newjak
Oh I know.

It's also why even if you get rid of "governments and the state" other ones would just take place because you need governing bodies to enforce social constructs like currency and laws.

If corporations were the ones to step into that void it would be like going back to feudal lord systems.

No private property holders would write the rules, within the bounds of their property. Thus if you don't like the rules don't patron the place with the rules you don't like.

Of course there wouldn't be universal laws because people are different.
Catholics would follow Catholic law, Muslims Muslim law, Jews Jewish law.

Of course youd want competing currencies, only having one currency is a weakness because it insinuates only one group would control the money supply, which would give that money printing entity asymmetric power.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Woman" is not synonymous with "female." It is a social category that includes both cisgender and transgender people who identify with the social role "woman."

There may be some merit to segregating spaces by sex when people share them in the nude. And there may be some merit to segregating spaces by gender identity when the purpose is to discuss shared experiences.

But neither of those are "safe spaces," and no one is administering a DNA test as a condition of entry, so it is a really weak argument.

Since when isn't female synonymous with woman ? Are you sure this isn't you parroting an incoherent ideology then projecting on me that my ideology is the incoherent one ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
No private property holders would write the rules, within the bounds of their property. Thus if you don't like the rules don't patron the place with the rules you don't like.

Of course there wouldn't be universal laws because people are different.
Catholics would follow Catholic law, Muslims Muslim law, Jews Jewish law.

Of course youd want competing currencies, only having one currency is a weakness because it insinuates only one group would control the money supply, which would give that money printing entity asymmetric power.

And what keeps property owners from just taking other people's property and adding it their own? What happens to people born without property or if their families have no property?

Is the owner just one big king? What about the spouse's of these owners? What happens to the property when the owners die?

Who enforces this?

You're basically taking us back to early human civilization and starting the exact same cycle that got us to this point to begin with.

Originally posted by Newjak
Oh I know.

It's also why even if you get rid of "governments and the state" other ones would just take place because you need governing bodies to enforce social constructs like currency and laws.

If corporations were the ones to step into that void it would be like going back to feudal lord systems.

"Corporation" and "government" are just labels for the ways people have decided to organize themselves. The only difference is the reason around which they are organized. I do not know why he thinks one label is preferable to the other, or why he thinks profit is some sacred motive, when history has proven that it is not.

Originally posted by cdtm
See, this is why I wish you'd read the article. It would do a far better job of explaining it then I could.

But it does go into how feminism is as much about head spaces as biological realities. A side feature next to the main article is a feminist explaining how if she was raised in a butch community, she could as easily been chasing after ideals of butch masculinity instead of her anti-patriarchial ambitions.

I'm still digesting the article myself, there is a lot to take in and I'm not certain I'll ever grasp it all. But I do see the main criticism of a pre-op trans woman stripping naked in a shower with feminist women who weren't really conditioned to accept that, at an event who's purpose was to get away from male violence.

From the context, it sounds like this particular trans individual was intentionally flouting his organ as a statement, and inadvertently trampled on people suffering from their own issued related to the organ in question.

It sounds like a lot of histrionics.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Since when isn't female synonymous with woman ? Are you sure this isn't you parroting an incoherent ideology then projecting on me that my ideology is the incoherent one ?

Since always. We do not have separate terms for "sex" and "gender," because they are the same thing.

Originally posted by Newjak
And what dictates the currency used?

And what keeps property owners from just taking other people's property and adding it their own? What happens to people born without property or if their families have no property?

Is the owner just one big king? What about the spouse's of these owners? What happens to the property when the owners die?

Who enforces this?

You're basically taking us back to early human civilization and starting the exact same cycle that got us to this point to begin with.

The people who want to use it i.e. people investing in gold, silver, crypto, stocks, etc.

Competition between currencies would reveal which are good and which aren't. The better currency that holds it value longer would be stored, while the lesser curricies would have a rapid circulation. This is a principle known as Gresham's law.

The things that stops someone from stealing other people's property is; a sense of decency/moral compass, self defense (if someone comes to steal from me and I point a shotgun at them, they're going to be deterred.), Security measures i.e. gravel to hear someone's approach, security cameras, dogs, signage.
These are also the things that stop property crime now, as around 40 percent of murders in America currently go unsolved, in addition to thousands and thousands of other property crimes.
Laws aren't what stop the average person from murdering, raping, or stealing, common decency is. Immoral people don't give a shit about following laws or not.

If your family has no property it's because they didn't provide any value to anyone, if they did then they'd be able to afford property.
Everyone is born with property, it's called your body and it's effects.

No I'm saying we should go back 300 years before there were violent cartels known as governments, that only exist as parasites on the back of consumer-producers.
They provide nothing, if they did provide value they wouldn't be in mutli-trillionaire debt.

If a powerful company in a free market doesn't provide value then it collapses as a business. The only place valueless businesses exist is under the state, in the form or bailout or artificially low interest loans.

So if a powerful company became violent in a free market, it would quickly collapse.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Corporation" and "government" are just labels for the ways people have decided to organize themselves. The only difference is the reason around which they are organized. I do not know why he thinks one label is preferable to the other, or why he thinks profit is some sacred motive, when history has proven that it is not.

Corporation is a term for a an imaginary person, that represents many people

From the wiki:
"A corporation is an organization—usually a group of people or a company—authorized by the state to act as a single entity (a legal entity recognized by private and public law "born out of statute"; a legal person in legal context) and recognized as such in law for certain purposes"

What you call the government is the state and the state is unique compared to other social organizations.
This is because the state makes the laws, run the courts, and control the money.
Can other groups do this ?