mkantor

[mkantor]

You can't call yourself a Marxist and be ideologically opposed to trans people, those are incompatible modes of thought.

gender identity theory is incompatible with the Marxist scientific method.

believing your thoughts determine your reality is a product of subjective idealism. Marxism is not idealism but dialectical materialism, there is an objective reality and objective material conditions from which human consciousness stems. we exist as material, physical beings rather than immaterial conscious spirits. subjective consciousness is subordinate to and dependent upon the material world.

the correct Marxist position is not "i feel i'm a woman therefore i am a woman" but "i am objectively female, and this makes me a woman".

[mkantor]

look at how similar these two faces are….and yet they seem completely different…..

thats sex pattern recognition babe!

[mkantor]

Re: My Post about the “Tea App”— an App for women to post about shitty men they’ve dated (or questioning if men they are dating / interested in are shitty)

The whole premise of the OG Tea App is women’s safety. To post men who: are abusive, rapists, misogynistic, womanizer, etc.

I just wanted you all to know that men have created a counter app for women, I won’t share the name for reasons I’ll explain soon. It was up for only 24 hours.

Do you want to know why it was only up for 24 hours?

Because men were using the website to post revenge porn of their ex girlfriends/wives/others.

When the Tea App started gaining traction and popularity, there was meltdowns from men all over the country. Men threatening lawsuits, men who are worried about being “falsely accused” of being rapists, abusers, and shitty men overall.

But the biggest outcry was men saying “We need an app like that for us men!!! Women can be shitty too!!!” But look what they did. Instead of proving a point that these women are these evil, manipulative, gold digging human beings— they prove our point. That men are, deep down, abusive predators. Opportunists, who would take ANY chance to hurt women.

Men are the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Men are barbaric, misogynistic, and sick.

“When men are scared of dating, they’re scared about getting used or being catfished. When women are dating, they are scared about being raped or murdered.”

[mkantor]

Taylor Swift says "please don't call me a bitch" and the internet wishes death on her and she's canceled for years. Sean Combs rapes and abused women and the public supports him.

Rachel Zegler is "rude" (not even true) and the internet wishes death on her and tried to ruin her career. Brad Pitt abuses his wife and kids and everyone goes to see the F1 movie.

Beabadoobie and Doechii make slightly man-critical posts and men hate on them and send death threats. Chris Brown sends Rihanna to the ER and is now on a sold out tour.

Blake Lively burps in an interview and speaks out about sexual harassment and she's sued to oblivion and ridiculed. Johnny Depp abuses Amber Heard and faces almost zero punishment (meanwhile Amber herself suffers immensely).

Billie Eilish covers her body and says it's to stop perverts from sexualizing her when she's underage, then feels confident and wears more revealing clothes, then covers up again, and men dehumanize her and hate on her for her clothing choice. Kanye West forces his girlfriend to wear a see through dress on the red carpet and says she's underage his "dominion" and people still say "but he made good music" and "it was her choice!"

Taylor Swift writes a few feminist songs and men hate her and want her dead. Kanye West has revenge porn in his music video and says "He*l Hitler" (i don't even want to type it im sorry it makes me sick) in one of his songs and his career is all right.

The Chicks (formerly The Dixie Chicks) said something slightly critical about George W Bush and were run out of the music scene. Dr Luke rapes Kesha and is still producing albums.

Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake participate in that nip slip performance. Justin Timberlake's career is just fine. Janet Jackson's suffers.

Lindsay Lohan suffers from drug addiction and the world makes massive fun of her (even after she got clean!). Ben Affleck, John Mulaney, Jon Hamm, etc have gotten drug treatment and were fine! Male talk show hosts like Fallon are on coke and abuse their employees and no one complains.

Sinead O'Connor speaks out about sexual abuse in the church, she's hated on relentlessly. Vin Diesel has rape accusations and is beloved.

Winona Ryder shoplifted and was blacklisted. John Travolta is a rapist and is still beloved.

Beyoncé gets shit for feminist songs. The Weeknd songs about raping a lesbian and Tyler the Creator sings about raping pregnant women and they're fine!

"cancel culture" has really only affected women who are slightly rude or step out of line just a little bit. no matter how much feminists try to cancel rapists and abusers, their careers thrive.

[mkantor]

Put an end to sexual violence in the 21st century! (Juche 89 / 2000)

[mkantor]

the idea that your true self is someone that lies outside of who you already are now, and that it’s possible to slowly transform into that person, is a dangerous philosophy to introduce to those who hate themselves

[mkantor]

My friend recently expressed interest in reading one of my “feminist books” so today I lent her my copy of Dworkin’s Right-Wing Women.

[mkantor]

Bruce Springsteen and Clarence Clemons, Kansas City, KS, 1978. Photo by Pete Souza.

[mkantor]

For a bunch of homophobes, these Republican male legislators sure are eager to suck Trump’s dick.

[mkantor]

Listen, I’ve tried not hating men. They’re hellbent on proving that they should be hated like what can I do????

[mkantor]

A woman who can't get pregnant is still a woman.

A woman born with no womb is still a woman.

A woman with a beard is still a woman.

A woman with no periods is still a woman.

A woman with high testosterone is still a woman.

A woman with an enlarged clitoris is still a woman.

A woman with ambiguous genitalia is still a woman.

A man who is infertile is not a woman. A man with no beard is not a woman. A man with a micro penis is not a woman. A man with internal tests is not a woman. A man with low testosterone is not a woman.

Biological sex is binary, but people are not, and tryibg to make them enter boxes too rigid for them is harmful. But pretending someone is less of a man or woman because they have sex variations is harmful too.

[mkantor]

It did not occur to me, as a man, to put myself in the shoes of a woman, encountering a “legal woman” with male genitals in a women-only space." And that is coming from a human rights professor.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/27/i-lost-friends-when-i-changed-my-mind-on-trans-rights/

I changed my mind on trans rights – and lost multiple friends

As a human rights lawyer, I never questioned the trans movement. But, after a lightbulb moment, I publicly changed my position

King’s College London human rights professor Robert Wintemute believes some members of the transgender-rights movement do not understand that ‘women have human rights too’ Credit: Geoff Pugh

By Robert Wintemute 27 May 2025

I am a human rights lawyer and professor at King’s College London. Until 2018, I supported all the demands of the transgender-rights movement. But since then, I have changed my mind.

Why? Because I finally understood that some demands conflict with the rights of women and are therefore unreasonable.

I first encountered transgender rights as a University of Oxford PhD student, researching the human rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals and same-sex couples. The claims of transsexual persons, as they were then known, seemed different to me. I did not understand them, so I was reluctant to comment on them.

And when, in the 2002 Christine Goodwin case (Goodwin said that she had faced sexual harassment at work following gender-affirming surgery), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK must amend the sex on the birth certificates of “post-operative transsexuals” to reflect their “new sexual identity”, I thought that this must be progress. At last, the UK would have to catch up with other European countries.

Two years later, when the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 went well beyond that ruling, by not requiring any surgery or other medical treatment (a person with a beard and male genitals could become legally female), it struck me as very generous but I did not question it.

I assumed that whatever the transgender community demanded must be reasonable.

They knew what they needed. It did not occur to me, as a man, to put myself in the shoes of a woman, encountering a “legal woman” with male genitals in a women-only space.

As such, when I joined a group of experts in Indonesia to draft the 2007 Yogyakarta Principles, widely cited as “best practice” on sexual orientation and gender identity, I did not question the proposals of the transgender experts.

Everything changed in 2018. My lightbulb moment came at a university summer school. I was asked to explain the “spousal veto” under UK law: a wife must consent, if her husband wishes to change his legal sex to female and in turn make their opposite-sex marriage into a same-sex marriage. I said that the husband’s human right to change his legal sex could be limited to respect “the rights of others” (the wife’s right not to be in a same-sex marriage against her will).

A transgender student could not understand how I could compare the husband’s “fundamental human right” with the wife’s right under “a contract” (their marriage). Feeling frustrated, I said: “Trans rights don’t trump everything else!”

The transgender student became angry and stormed out of the classroom. Finally, it dawned on me that some members of the transgender-rights movement did not seem to understand that women have human rights too.

Over the next two years, I began to speak with women about their concerns about some transgender demands.

One woman asked if I had read Principle 31 of the 2017 Yogyakarta Principles (in which I did not participate). I had not done so and was shocked when I read it.

It boldly claimed that every country in the world must remove sex from birth certificates and, until then, allow change of legal sex based on self-identification (without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria).

In 2021, I publicly changed my position. On April 1 of that year, in an interview published in The Critic, I criticised Principle 31 and suggested for the first time that allowing change of legal sex might not be necessary to protect the rights of transgender people.

Fifteen days later, citing the interview, an LGBT organisation terminated its relationship with me, after more than twenty years.

To an LGBT-rights activist I had known for just as long, I wrote: “I hope that we can still be friends!” He replied that he wanted “to take a break for a bit” (now four years and counting).

A month later, I became a trustee of the charity LGB Alliance (founded in 2019 after Stonewall began to prioritise transgender issues) and went on to speak at its first annual conference.

In that speech, I focused on the legal changes I had witnessed since 2002 and linked the political tensions surrounding transgender rights to an “abuse of sympathy”, which had in turn led to an “escalation of demands”.

I charted how we had shifted from change of legal sex after surgery, to change of legal sex without medical treatment but with safeguards (a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and a two-year waiting period), to change of legal sex based on self-identification (with no safeguards) and finally to removing sex from birth certificates (meaning that there is no legal sex to change).

These were ideas I carried forwards to a staff research seminar at King’s in November of 2021 – albeit not without controversy. The Dean of the School of Law rejected calls to cancel the event and showed his support for freedom of expression by attending. Three security guards were posted outside the room (a first in my thirty years at the university), but no protesters appeared.

Two years later, in January 2023, I was scheduled to give the same talk at Montréal’s McGill University Faculty of Law (where I had studied).

But this time I faced a hostile mob of between 100-200 students.

See rest of article

[mkantor]

“In the bigger picture, legally defining men and women biologically does not in itself guarantee progress for women. It could easily suggest the opposite, since these ideologues believe that gender is not a social construct but an expression of natural difference between men and women. On 23rd January, Trump rescinded an EO made by President Johnson in 1965, which prohibited government contractors from discriminating on the basis of race ‒ sex was added soon after. Other Trump EOs since then direct the removal of any government measures promoting inclusion, diversity and equality in the workplace. This will weaken the position of women in the workplace. The direction of travel is the radical narrowing of women’s lives ‒ because, after all, men and women are biologically different.”

— Rachel Durrent, “Sex and Gender in Trump’s America,” FiLiA, Feb. 6 2025

Highly recommend reading the whole piece for a breakdown of the recent executive orders.

[mkantor]

straight up, the rules of misogyny graphic changed my life. it's such a simple and practical tool for identifying patterns of patriarchy

[mkantor]

Oh no

[mkantor]

When I was like 15 or 16 I helped conduct an intergenerational LGBT meeting. I presented alongside a millennial nonbinary bisexual woman to a room of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and two spirit elders. The presentation was to inform these elders on what the new generations of local LGBT people are doing, and how we're identifying, and with what words. We ran through a bunch of sexualities and trans and nonbinary gender identities and "queer" identity.

These people who were all 50+ were trying to keep up with the times, but their bodies visibly tensed when we started using the word "queer." They started whispering to each other, becoming less engaged. I remember one flamboyant guy started rolling his eyes and lightly heckling. At the end we took questions, and they started telling me and my millennial mentor about the word queer.

Most of them had been called it derogatorily, like a slur. Many of them were called that while being beaten–that was a story that many of the gay men spoke up about. An elderly lesbian for angry at the presentation and told us that she would never be queer because she's not unusual. One gay man had a homophobic bully that terrorized him as a boy, called him a queer and they got in a fight. The gay man grabbed a brick and hit the guy's head–he ended up dying and the gay man was convicted of manslaughter. He was crying while he admitted all this, telling me that that's how serious the word "queer" is to the older generations. I think it's one of the largest reasons why we are disconnected from our elders.

After the meeting I felt awful. I couldn't stop thinking about how they were talking about not liking what the community is becoming, but back then I was too young to fully grasp it. My mentor assured me that progress takes time, and they will eventually do the right thing and come around to using the proper pronouns, and accepting of "queerness". But I wasn't so sure. Whenever I hear the word queer, I think of all the people that we alienate.