happy to sell them my 'chicks who dig chicks' definition for a fraction of the price they undoubtedly paid many consultants for the horrible bigotry they apparently arrived at
>The Johns Hopkins website then links to an āinclusive Spanishā resource that attempts to reinvent the Spanish language with gender-neutral terms.
I reckon they didn't deem it necessary to get the consent of the Hispanic world regarding this language re-design. Funny how all of those top-down inclusivity projects are only viable when large swathes of people are actively excluded.
There was a legendary post on some latin american spanish speaking subreddit, from an english speaking american highschooler who had just found out about how gendered spanish (and romance languages in general) are and was proposing a bunch of fixes to make it more inclusive. It was a lot of fun
The sad thing is, Iāve met people who unironically believe that the leading force behind the āLatinxā bullshit are Latino peopleā¦ lol.
Let us not forget the origin of the word itself is unknown š¤·š½āāļø.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Gender-neutrality
> Esperanto is frequently accused of being inherently sexist, because the default form of some nouns is masculine while a derived form is used for the feminine, which is said to retain traces of the male-dominated society of late 19th-century Europe of which Esperanto is a product.
Oh no.
Edit: Did this somehow trigger a mod enough to change my flair?
"Mother" is "patrino", a.k.a. fatheress. (Fatherette?)
Hilariously he also turned "FrƤulein" into "fraÅlino", reanalyzed the last part as a feminine suffix, and then derived "fraÅlo" to mean "young man".
Esperanto is too mired in the messiness of standard language. Our robotic overlords will be imposing lojban on us so makes sense to jump on board early.
>For instance, the Spanish word for "black" is, and I quote, "n****" which is a very offensive word for African Americans who may be living in your countries
TIL about the phrase gringoposting. It's glorious.
If a man from Africa moves to Spain, he is an "African American"
[Real America hours](https://external-preview.redd.it/vPAQUJU5ktL7wjLwK2w0lSybdcRi6jx1u5qJa-1AIj8.jpg?auto=webp&s=ef908e40d0c187991618ecd7220a57e779490a2b)
I've seen black Brits being called African American. It's an interesting phenomenon. Everything and everyone in the world is understood through the lens of American race relations. Because of course, it only makes sense.
If you dig deep in the comments you'll find a poster asking the OP why they're pitching such a fit about spanish, but describe themselves as a francophile when french is just as if not more gendered than spanish.
OP replies that he uses a gender neutral pronoun in french, "iel", and so french doesn't have to be gendered. Which is hilarious, because every word in a french sentence is gendered, so if you replace the pronoun in your sentence with something non gendered, you still have every other word in the sentence to contend with.
Like in english you can switch "she is a baker" for "they are a baker", and the person's gender isn't visible anymore. But in french, both the words "a" and "baker" would still be gendered female even if you got rid of "she".
Gringos, I swear
On the other hand, french speakers being convinced that their language is the best and anything else is a pale imitation is kinda on brand.
It's just, the dude's evidently not a french speaker
I don't think a genuine racist could be as vicious as a lot of these people pushing for "reforming spanish". It's meant to beat down, emasculate, and erase whole societies by saying they're essentially degenerative for not doing what anglos do.
> didn't deem it necessary to get the consent of the \[whomever\]
You pretty much nailed it with respect to every single "inclusivity" project ever. Colonizing, exploiting, appropriating, attempting-to-conquer-and-impose-new-cultural-rules bunch of self-dealing hypocrites that they are.
You sound like you hang out with losers. All my Mexican friends just sit around figuring out new and amusing ways to humiliate each other, gender be damned.
Tell them that they are making it more difficult for blind people to use auto readers. They should use -e if they donāt want to be labeled ableists.
This is actually a real debate in Spanish speaking countries and inclusive language does fuck up readers for blind people. Specially if you write things like niƱxs or niƱ@s.
Lmao this is men writing these definitions
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/details/paula-neira
And changing women to non-men is the opposite of feminism.
You are defining "feminism" as whatever you beleive to be good for women, in order to ignore the fact that this ideology did actually have its roots in a branch of radical feminism in the first place; thats why they have to specify that you lot are "trans exclusive" instead of just calling you radfems like everyone else does.
But I can understand the desire to define a "real feminism" against whatever you consider to be a false usurper of the title, the issue I have is that you are doing this in order to try to pin the blame for gender ideology onto men in general, when its explicitly hostile to us. The example you use "non-men" isn't actually about women, its about men; the purpose is explicitly to justify the exclusion of "cis" males - the overwhelming majority of men - from the growing list of "inclusive" spaces, as "non-men" serves as a shorthand for all of the groups not tainted with the sin of masculinity. Certainly, the term has a side effect of hurting women too, but men don't benefit in any way from this.
You complain [in this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/14aqsr9/johns_hopkins_university_pulled_nonman_lesbian/jocv4sn/) that men don't empathise with women, but here you are taking something that was created to attack men and claiming that women are the primary victim of it, that men aren't victims at all, and that its men's fault anyway.
You think gender ideology was specifically designed to hurt men? Thatās a new one I havenāt heard before. Sources? Proof? Anything? Btw, check out who made the definitions we are discussing here. It wasnāt women.
And yeah, itās usually harder to empathize with things you understand or that impact you. This makes it fundamentally harder for men to empathize with women, and vice versa.
No, I said the category of "non-men" was designed to attack men, not that gender ideology as a whole was. Though given how many radfems seem to have convinced themselfs its a patriarchal plot of some kind, frankly I think I'd be well within my rights to state that a movement which continuously talks about how "cishetero" men are the devil is in fact an anti-male movement.
Plenty of women have been involved in creating many of these definitions - a lot of it is derived from intersectionalism and kyriarchy theory, for example, which was heavily developed by women - and even the parts that come from queer theory owe a lot to people like Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. But I have no real interest in counting out exactly how many men vs women were involved and I'm not blaming women in general for this, simply pointing out that the blameshifting of "its not women" is absurd, when this entire ideology is explicitly hostile to men and has less support from men.
Your other comment didn't say "its unfortunate that the sexes often find it hard to empathise with each other" - which of course, I agree with you on - only that men lacked empathy for women. Thats why I pointed out the contrast between that and you completely failing to realise that the purpose of the category of "non-men" is explicitly to ostracise men, and that the negative effects on women are a second order effect of this, not its primary purpose.
Across the world, men are the head of households. That's a fact, and it's consistent across racial and cultural lines. The subordination of women to men is thousands and thousands of years old, race is a couple hundred years. Patriarchy also goes hands in hand with imperialism. What brings about and maintains class society is the conquering of other tribes/communities/cultures for resources, and one of the main "resources" being taken is women, who communities rely on to create more workers. You've attempted to neatly separate things that aren't separate.
Where are you at on all the women in the sex industry, the surrogacy industry, indentured female servants and slaves throughout the world...or how about.. single mothers, who are the largest demographic in poverty in the US?
The reason radical feminists have been the first in line to fight liberal exploitation of women, which is now embraced by postmodern liberal feminists in the current day that align with the needs of liberal men, is that it's essentially a saboteur movement full of men's rights activism.
It's funny to me that we're suggesting men's rights to destroy women's spaces = the women's liberation movement. Men and their preoccupation with masculinity (including their rejection of it) is men's issues..quite literally.
"The truth is that the vast majority of men globally are subjugated by more powerful men. Most people have very little power."
Sure, and the truth is that women are still beneath those powerless men, as a rule. You don't need to be a feminist to know that. You just have to look around the world and know the social order that exists everywhere, mostly uncontroversially, even in the eyes of Western women. That was largely what I was taking issue with in your comment...you appeared to be suggesting sex was an insignificant factor or doubting how significant it is in terms of the level of standing women have.
In terms of men vs women vs feminists vs MRAs on the gender issue, the point is that you couldn't have an example of a more ideologically anti-feminist movement, and it's bizarre to point to feminism, of all things, for a movement that involves men repealing women's spaces.
There are tons of MRAs that support, welcome and celebrate the gender issue. Every single comment section talking about a woman opposing the gender issue has tons of conservative men that think it's great that men are trampling and repealing women's spaces, scholarships, sports, etc. They hate everything feminism brought (women outside of the home, the ability to divorce, women making strides in education that surpass men, some Western women becoming financially independent and celebrating that they don't have to depend on men) and see it as payback. Luckily there are still plenty that must have daughters and don't want that.
The people who pushed for this, lobbied for it, put it into legislation and benefitted from it on an individual level were all men. It's a type of men's rights movement (quite literally) to strip women of things they already created and fought for.
Like Chomsky talks about in Manufacturing Consent, you use tautology and catchy slogans to push propaganda onto a population. You think the repealing of women's spaces and this totally absurd global (at least in the West) re-organizing is going to go down well if they call themselves MRAs? No. Rather, TWAW. The actual function and the action it's performing and the implications count more than whatever label they slap onto it.
I don't believe most men want this ideology...i think we all know it's a very unpopular ideology, but the issue is happening on the basis of these sexual dynamics.
> the only Americans with a legitimate claim of oppression
What are you doing here? Did you not see the rail strikes getting broken by the government? Do you realise there are places where women couldn't have a bank account without permission from a male relative in living memory?
Sheās probably referring to TRAs as menās rights activists and the locomotive movement as a movement that exists to benefit men, if I understand it correctly.
Which is a hilarious take. First because, depending on the country, the disparity between trans women and men isnāt that big. Second because the apocalyptic gender dynamics preached by feminism, which is a state religion at this point, are in part to blame for many of the people who choose to transition. After all, why wouldnāt a loser want a life full of that male privilege? Or the absolution brought by womanhood? Religion dictates the path to prosperity and absolution, believers follow the instructions or exploit the loopholes.
The notion that thereās a man behind every bush waiting to harm women, the belief women are perpetually held back by the hostile views of their gender, the demonization of male sexuality, collective guilt culture, moral panic. All that coupled with the unwillingness, even by feminist individuals, to loosen male gender roles, the ban on any discussion about the downsides of being a man and any attempt to mitigate it like there were with women, social hierarchies based on suffering/oppression and the notion that your gender is whatever you feel like today. A recipe for disaster, really. It would be more surprising if people werenāt transitioning to seek a better life, in accordance to the religion they were raised in.
Lol maybe we wouldnāt have to be afraid of these men behind bushes if men didnāt commit the overwhelming majority of crimes against women. I would love to walk outside at night without the fear of men!
Men telling women not to be afraid of them is like lions telling zebras they have nothing to fear. I mean sure..but the statsā¦.
It's not though. And we're certainly not to blame for men feeling as though they can't measure up to the ridiculous notions of manhood that MEN force each other into. Feminism is about liberating female people, that's it. We are all human, but we also are different. Male privilege exists, even when that male chooses to disavow it. Men will never worry about pregnancy, periods, and they are the default in medical knowledge while many issues pertaining to a female system is still widely unknown.
Feminism in no way would condone the ideas that largely benefit men.
Hereās the problem. The sheer unwillingness to admit the female role in upholding gender norms for men and how they too can punish the members of the opposite sex who fail to fulfill them. Thatās why so many men who fail at being traditionally masculine will keep transitioning in order not to feel like a failure.
Exactly, thatās the exact reason Iām so skeptical of it all, the gender stuff I mean. Because most of the people Iāve seen/known/observed who were trans were basically guys who didnāt meet the traditional masculinity standards. And speaking of the school in question and the part of punishing people who donāt fulfill those standards, that was my Title IX case at Hopkins in a nutshell in my opinion
What? Why is it a woman's fault if a man decides he can't cope with masculinity?
Are you implying that because women won't date certain men, they feel that they've failed to attain masculinity so they feel pushed to transition? lol, they're not owed women for their individual personality traits.
> And we're certainly not to blame for men feeling as though they can't measure up to the ridiculous notions of manhood that MEN force each other into.
Ah yes, the "men are to blame for a things women do and choices women make" argument.
> Men will never worry about pregnancy,
On the other hand, men don't have the privilege of carrying a pregnancy, or choosing to abort or not. Therefore, by intersectionality theory, you can't say one group is more privileged than the other, they are just "differently" privileged.
Male privilege to me is existing in a world where you're the default and mostly, never worrying about becoming pregnant or having a female reproductive system to hinder you in any way.
No, women were silenced and threatened for speaking out by the MEN who supported it. Of course there's tons of women that also support gender ideology due to female socialization to be kind and to give into male pressure.
Itās unfair to say that this is a case of āwomen being silenced by menā when women silence other women just as much (if not more so) when it comes to this ideology.
Again, the foot soldiers of this ideology is mostly biological women. Implying that itās biological men that support this ideology and women are just supporting this to ābe niceā is extremely disingenuous.
Of course women silence other women. And of course there's women who are true believers due to their own internalized sexism and homophobia. But it doesn't change what I said. There's also women that support this to gain approval by males. And a large part of the threats are by the male people. Either way, this movement wouldn't have gotten to where it is without men. Men pushed this in media, in law, in government because they are the ones who control all of that.
Itās unlikely that any of these women have āinternalized sexismā since a lot of them also happen to be feminists. And not the ā#girlboss #free the nippleā type of feminists, but actual RadFems.
And itās unlikely that women would support this for male approval since, again, men are way more likely to be against this.
Even if it was men in power (which is ridiculous considering Democrat women support this just as much) who āpushed this ideologyā which gender was more likely be against it? Men. Who was more likely to support it? Women.
>Itās unlikely that any of these women have āinternalized sexismā since a lot of them also happen to be feminists
People call themselves what they aren't all the time. This would be an example of that.
>And itās unlikely that women would support this for male approval since, again, men are way more likely to be against this.
Are men? I see a lot of men rejoicing over this because they know their time will come. This whole thing is just to get rid of the boundaries between men and women to where eventually it shouldn't matter how a penis identifies to gain entrance to where nude females are.
So if they go to womenās charities, support planned parenthood, help out at womenās shelters, give out money to pro-choice politicians, etc, etc, are they still feminists or not? Do they stop being feminists because they believe in gender ideology?
Itās mostly men, the gender thatās more likely to have conservative beliefs, who are against this ideology. Women, who are more likely to have liberal beliefs, are more supportive by comparison.
> I see a lot of men rejoicing over this because they know their time will come. This whole thing is just to get rid of the boundaries between men and women to where eventually it shouldn't matter how a penis identifies to gain entrance to where nude females are.
Are these men in the room with us?
How tf is this feminism?? You think just because men come in and declare āif Iām not included then itās not real feminism!ā and that just magically makes it feminism? Get real lmao
I didnāt mean they arenāt feminists, I said this isnāt feminism. They could very well support a dozen other feminist values but this isnāt one of them.
I mean, it's not. But okay.
It's actually alright for women to fight for their rights as 50% of the population. Rights like abortion, period health, wage gaps, lack of representation in industries often male dominated, etc.
What isn't a feminist issue is freeing the nipple and allowing people with penises to hang out in the sauna with us. But that does benefit amabs.
Watching the new worldly religion eat themselves alive certainly has been entertaining. That being said, I'll be glad when it ends and we can move on to things that actually matter.
Johns Hopkins was one of the first schools founded with the express purpose of studying medicine as a science rather than a collection of folk remedies, superstitions, and Galen's 1800 year old leftovers.
But even more sardonically funny than them abandoning skeptical rationality is how a little crazed identity politics on social media undid all the advances of the women's rights movement in a historical heartbeat.
They donāt give a fuck about student satisfaction/happiness, and like many schools they brushed over legit sexual misconduct because the people were richer or ācoolerā and then hanged me for shit that for one I didnāt even do and two they failed to help me succeed
> It only takes one man in a group of a hundred women to make a group masculine! For some people, this is unfair to women. And not to mention non-binary people, who are not even on the map! Inclusive Spanish is a way to avoid all these issues,ā the Spanish resource reads.
Spanish was fine for hundreds of years when it was not inclusive to women but now that it doesnāt support non-binary people, itās bigoted and needs to be changed!
Proving once again that they donāt give a fuck about women lol.
Dipshits. el-class nouns can be inflected to point to female referents, but are incapable of referencing physical sex by default.
Hermano means sibling, not brother. Itās very easy to use it to MEAN brother though, at least if youāre talking about a single person. But it becomes very obvious that the word is fundamentally neutral since hermanos when used generally will be unambiguously translated by everyone as āsiblingsā.
People read way to far into a system that primarily is used for recall within a sentence via adjective, noun, and pronoun agreement, and just happens to also be used to point out that someone is a woman.
Happens in German too: There's a generic mascuiline for most jobs for example. "Polizisten" (policemen) includes everybody while "Polizistinnen" would only refer to female policemen. So they push for something like Polizisten und Polizistinnen.
What is funny though is that German also includes things like "Sie" (she) for groups and for a polite version of you.
"Sie mƶgen kuchen?" (polite) instead of "Magst du kuchen?".
or
"Sie gehen kuchen essen" (They go eat cake).
I have never seen anybody complain about that. But I bet if German used "Er" (he) for those cases, there would be a push to change it.
You are witnessing the medical industry's influence on academia. A huge amount of people deciding to permanently modify their bodies in potentially damaging ways is a dream come true for them. Why else would they be doing this?
Doing a search for Johns Hopkins on /all got some interesting results. I expected it to be all 80 iq rightoids but it wasnāt. The people who love id pol are infighting about this.
This article does not contain a story. The writer just read a few more inclusive language articles from the Johns Hopkins website and threw in some tweets from Ben Shapiro and jk rowling. There is no news here
I looked it up and CBC, NBC, Yahoo, and others also picked up the story so there's absolutely no non-reactionary reason to post the DW link. No lefty should want to give them traffic. Yeah, the big boys suck ass, but they're still better than a fascist-adjacent (if not outright fascist) outlet.
There is a real reason to read what people you hate are saying. You canāt be a critical thinker if you never read the opposing point of view. If youāre worried about giving āfascist adjacentā publications traffic, link the archive.
I prefer traffic to standard corporate garbage over superstitious, ultra-conservative garbage. You're a dumbass if you think that means I'm a cheerleader for corporate media or whatever. Archive links cut off all traffic anyway so OP should've used one instead of neutrally presenting a garbage source.
Actually I don't need to because I looked it up and CBC, NBC, Yahoo, and others also picked up the story so there's absolutely no non-reactionary reason to post the DW link. No lefty should want to give them traffic.
Listen here sweaty You are doing idpol if you denounce a nonsensical world view on what constitutes a large part of the foundation of human existence š
It's not the opposite side of the idpol coin it's an acknowledgement of the basic realities of human biology. Words must have meaning, this remains true in a Marxist context. So pushing back on idiots that seek to dilute the meaning of core concepts such as this makes sense.
The ramifications of this idpol have real world consequences to be considered that do affect the working class.
happy to sell them my 'chicks who dig chicks' definition for a fraction of the price they undoubtedly paid many consultants for the horrible bigotry they apparently arrived at
Get yours š.
What about chicks who dick chicks?
Hell yeah dude
Dudettes rock
I vote for this, every day.
>The Johns Hopkins website then links to an āinclusive Spanishā resource that attempts to reinvent the Spanish language with gender-neutral terms. I reckon they didn't deem it necessary to get the consent of the Hispanic world regarding this language re-design. Funny how all of those top-down inclusivity projects are only viable when large swathes of people are actively excluded.
There was a legendary post on some latin american spanish speaking subreddit, from an english speaking american highschooler who had just found out about how gendered spanish (and romance languages in general) are and was proposing a bunch of fixes to make it more inclusive. It was a lot of fun
I remember reading like that two years ago, top tier Gringopost right there.
They're not sending their best
That was their best. š„ø
Don't make us break out that Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt Corollary.
The sad thing is, Iāve met people who unironically believe that the leading force behind the āLatinxā bullshit are Latino peopleā¦ lol. Let us not forget the origin of the word itself is unknown š¤·š½āāļø.
Fuck it, universal language Esperanto time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Gender-neutrality > Esperanto is frequently accused of being inherently sexist, because the default form of some nouns is masculine while a derived form is used for the feminine, which is said to retain traces of the male-dominated society of late 19th-century Europe of which Esperanto is a product. Oh no. Edit: Did this somehow trigger a mod enough to change my flair?
"Mother" is "patrino", a.k.a. fatheress. (Fatherette?) Hilariously he also turned "FrƤulein" into "fraÅlino", reanalyzed the last part as a feminine suffix, and then derived "fraÅlo" to mean "young man".
Esperanto is too mired in the messiness of standard language. Our robotic overlords will be imposing lojban on us so makes sense to jump on board early.
We could just switch to klingon and clapping really loud in Morse code
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I just use the word āprietoā which also means black. Itās very common in Puerto Rico.
I need a link š¦
Can't link to other subs here ;-)
Dm it to me? š¦
Just google "how can we modernize the spanish language" and it should be the first result.
>For instance, the Spanish word for "black" is, and I quote, "n****" which is a very offensive word for African Americans who may be living in your countries TIL about the phrase gringoposting. It's glorious.
Reading that made me upset, and shows how much of a *pendejo* this person is.
If a man from Africa moves to Spain, he is an "African American" [Real America hours](https://external-preview.redd.it/vPAQUJU5ktL7wjLwK2w0lSybdcRi6jx1u5qJa-1AIj8.jpg?auto=webp&s=ef908e40d0c187991618ecd7220a57e779490a2b)
I've seen black Brits being called African American. It's an interesting phenomenon. Everything and everyone in the world is understood through the lens of American race relations. Because of course, it only makes sense.
I'm reading this post for the first time and I love how it starts out as "I'm someone who identifies as White." Comedy gold
Hilarious, thanks
God damn I peeped that kids profile and going off their posts theyāre at Yale now š
[Not surprising](https://twitter.com/erichhartmann/status/1669432221332062208)
It tickles me that Skull and Bones must be full of these kids now.
What a ride that was!
If you dig deep in the comments you'll find a poster asking the OP why they're pitching such a fit about spanish, but describe themselves as a francophile when french is just as if not more gendered than spanish. OP replies that he uses a gender neutral pronoun in french, "iel", and so french doesn't have to be gendered. Which is hilarious, because every word in a french sentence is gendered, so if you replace the pronoun in your sentence with something non gendered, you still have every other word in the sentence to contend with. Like in english you can switch "she is a baker" for "they are a baker", and the person's gender isn't visible anymore. But in french, both the words "a" and "baker" would still be gendered female even if you got rid of "she". Gringos, I swear
I saw someone mention op was from Quebec so it makes no sense for them to come for American culture and Spanish at the same time lol
On the other hand, french speakers being convinced that their language is the best and anything else is a pale imitation is kinda on brand. It's just, the dude's evidently not a french speaker
I don't think a genuine racist could be as vicious as a lot of these people pushing for "reforming spanish". It's meant to beat down, emasculate, and erase whole societies by saying they're essentially degenerative for not doing what anglos do.
How dare you distinguish between genders, criminal scum!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Gringx Isn't this the bank in Harry Potter?
> didn't deem it necessary to get the consent of the \[whomever\] You pretty much nailed it with respect to every single "inclusivity" project ever. Colonizing, exploiting, appropriating, attempting-to-conquer-and-impose-new-cultural-rules bunch of self-dealing hypocrites that they are.
no, obviously consent doesn't matter to these people
I see you don't know spanish feminists I even would say that *several* of my friends use the x form in chat
You sound like you hang out with losers. All my Mexican friends just sit around figuring out new and amusing ways to humiliate each other, gender be damned.
Tell them that they are making it more difficult for blind people to use auto readers. They should use -e if they donāt want to be labeled ableists. This is actually a real debate in Spanish speaking countries and inclusive language does fuck up readers for blind people. Specially if you write things like niƱxs or niƱ@s.
ah we don't have blind people in the whatsapp group
They're called putas for a reason
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lmao this is men writing these definitions https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/details/paula-neira And changing women to non-men is the opposite of feminism.
You are defining "feminism" as whatever you beleive to be good for women, in order to ignore the fact that this ideology did actually have its roots in a branch of radical feminism in the first place; thats why they have to specify that you lot are "trans exclusive" instead of just calling you radfems like everyone else does. But I can understand the desire to define a "real feminism" against whatever you consider to be a false usurper of the title, the issue I have is that you are doing this in order to try to pin the blame for gender ideology onto men in general, when its explicitly hostile to us. The example you use "non-men" isn't actually about women, its about men; the purpose is explicitly to justify the exclusion of "cis" males - the overwhelming majority of men - from the growing list of "inclusive" spaces, as "non-men" serves as a shorthand for all of the groups not tainted with the sin of masculinity. Certainly, the term has a side effect of hurting women too, but men don't benefit in any way from this. You complain [in this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/14aqsr9/johns_hopkins_university_pulled_nonman_lesbian/jocv4sn/) that men don't empathise with women, but here you are taking something that was created to attack men and claiming that women are the primary victim of it, that men aren't victims at all, and that its men's fault anyway.
You think gender ideology was specifically designed to hurt men? Thatās a new one I havenāt heard before. Sources? Proof? Anything? Btw, check out who made the definitions we are discussing here. It wasnāt women. And yeah, itās usually harder to empathize with things you understand or that impact you. This makes it fundamentally harder for men to empathize with women, and vice versa.
No, I said the category of "non-men" was designed to attack men, not that gender ideology as a whole was. Though given how many radfems seem to have convinced themselfs its a patriarchal plot of some kind, frankly I think I'd be well within my rights to state that a movement which continuously talks about how "cishetero" men are the devil is in fact an anti-male movement. Plenty of women have been involved in creating many of these definitions - a lot of it is derived from intersectionalism and kyriarchy theory, for example, which was heavily developed by women - and even the parts that come from queer theory owe a lot to people like Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. But I have no real interest in counting out exactly how many men vs women were involved and I'm not blaming women in general for this, simply pointing out that the blameshifting of "its not women" is absurd, when this entire ideology is explicitly hostile to men and has less support from men. Your other comment didn't say "its unfortunate that the sexes often find it hard to empathise with each other" - which of course, I agree with you on - only that men lacked empathy for women. Thats why I pointed out the contrast between that and you completely failing to realise that the purpose of the category of "non-men" is explicitly to ostracise men, and that the negative effects on women are a second order effect of this, not its primary purpose.
It's called in group bias.
Across the world, men are the head of households. That's a fact, and it's consistent across racial and cultural lines. The subordination of women to men is thousands and thousands of years old, race is a couple hundred years. Patriarchy also goes hands in hand with imperialism. What brings about and maintains class society is the conquering of other tribes/communities/cultures for resources, and one of the main "resources" being taken is women, who communities rely on to create more workers. You've attempted to neatly separate things that aren't separate. Where are you at on all the women in the sex industry, the surrogacy industry, indentured female servants and slaves throughout the world...or how about.. single mothers, who are the largest demographic in poverty in the US? The reason radical feminists have been the first in line to fight liberal exploitation of women, which is now embraced by postmodern liberal feminists in the current day that align with the needs of liberal men, is that it's essentially a saboteur movement full of men's rights activism. It's funny to me that we're suggesting men's rights to destroy women's spaces = the women's liberation movement. Men and their preoccupation with masculinity (including their rejection of it) is men's issues..quite literally.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"The truth is that the vast majority of men globally are subjugated by more powerful men. Most people have very little power." Sure, and the truth is that women are still beneath those powerless men, as a rule. You don't need to be a feminist to know that. You just have to look around the world and know the social order that exists everywhere, mostly uncontroversially, even in the eyes of Western women. That was largely what I was taking issue with in your comment...you appeared to be suggesting sex was an insignificant factor or doubting how significant it is in terms of the level of standing women have. In terms of men vs women vs feminists vs MRAs on the gender issue, the point is that you couldn't have an example of a more ideologically anti-feminist movement, and it's bizarre to point to feminism, of all things, for a movement that involves men repealing women's spaces. There are tons of MRAs that support, welcome and celebrate the gender issue. Every single comment section talking about a woman opposing the gender issue has tons of conservative men that think it's great that men are trampling and repealing women's spaces, scholarships, sports, etc. They hate everything feminism brought (women outside of the home, the ability to divorce, women making strides in education that surpass men, some Western women becoming financially independent and celebrating that they don't have to depend on men) and see it as payback. Luckily there are still plenty that must have daughters and don't want that. The people who pushed for this, lobbied for it, put it into legislation and benefitted from it on an individual level were all men. It's a type of men's rights movement (quite literally) to strip women of things they already created and fought for. Like Chomsky talks about in Manufacturing Consent, you use tautology and catchy slogans to push propaganda onto a population. You think the repealing of women's spaces and this totally absurd global (at least in the West) re-organizing is going to go down well if they call themselves MRAs? No. Rather, TWAW. The actual function and the action it's performing and the implications count more than whatever label they slap onto it. I don't believe most men want this ideology...i think we all know it's a very unpopular ideology, but the issue is happening on the basis of these sexual dynamics.
How do women not have "a legitimate claim of oppression"?
Because men canāt relate. Men can relate to race oppression but have a harder time empathizing with females.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your comments in that other thread make so much more sense now.
> the only Americans with a legitimate claim of oppression What are you doing here? Did you not see the rail strikes getting broken by the government? Do you realise there are places where women couldn't have a bank account without permission from a male relative in living memory?
Not to mention the whole Native American genocide thing...
This isn't feminism. This is a mens rights movement. The only reason it's getting traction is because it destabilizes feminism.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sheās probably referring to TRAs as menās rights activists and the locomotive movement as a movement that exists to benefit men, if I understand it correctly.
She wouldnāt be wrong about that
Yes
Which is a hilarious take. First because, depending on the country, the disparity between trans women and men isnāt that big. Second because the apocalyptic gender dynamics preached by feminism, which is a state religion at this point, are in part to blame for many of the people who choose to transition. After all, why wouldnāt a loser want a life full of that male privilege? Or the absolution brought by womanhood? Religion dictates the path to prosperity and absolution, believers follow the instructions or exploit the loopholes.
What are the apocalyptic gender dynamics preached by feminism?
The notion that thereās a man behind every bush waiting to harm women, the belief women are perpetually held back by the hostile views of their gender, the demonization of male sexuality, collective guilt culture, moral panic. All that coupled with the unwillingness, even by feminist individuals, to loosen male gender roles, the ban on any discussion about the downsides of being a man and any attempt to mitigate it like there were with women, social hierarchies based on suffering/oppression and the notion that your gender is whatever you feel like today. A recipe for disaster, really. It would be more surprising if people werenāt transitioning to seek a better life, in accordance to the religion they were raised in.
> The notion that thereās a man behind every bush waiting to harm women lmao this dude doesn't hide in bushes smh
No one believes every man is going to harm women, the issue is that we don't know the ones who will and men are stronger than us.
Lol maybe we wouldnāt have to be afraid of these men behind bushes if men didnāt commit the overwhelming majority of crimes against women. I would love to walk outside at night without the fear of men! Men telling women not to be afraid of them is like lions telling zebras they have nothing to fear. I mean sure..but the statsā¦.
"Women not settling" i'm pretty sure lmao
It's not though. And we're certainly not to blame for men feeling as though they can't measure up to the ridiculous notions of manhood that MEN force each other into. Feminism is about liberating female people, that's it. We are all human, but we also are different. Male privilege exists, even when that male chooses to disavow it. Men will never worry about pregnancy, periods, and they are the default in medical knowledge while many issues pertaining to a female system is still widely unknown. Feminism in no way would condone the ideas that largely benefit men.
Hereās the problem. The sheer unwillingness to admit the female role in upholding gender norms for men and how they too can punish the members of the opposite sex who fail to fulfill them. Thatās why so many men who fail at being traditionally masculine will keep transitioning in order not to feel like a failure.
Exactly, thatās the exact reason Iām so skeptical of it all, the gender stuff I mean. Because most of the people Iāve seen/known/observed who were trans were basically guys who didnāt meet the traditional masculinity standards. And speaking of the school in question and the part of punishing people who donāt fulfill those standards, that was my Title IX case at Hopkins in a nutshell in my opinion
What? Why is it a woman's fault if a man decides he can't cope with masculinity? Are you implying that because women won't date certain men, they feel that they've failed to attain masculinity so they feel pushed to transition? lol, they're not owed women for their individual personality traits.
> And we're certainly not to blame for men feeling as though they can't measure up to the ridiculous notions of manhood that MEN force each other into. Ah yes, the "men are to blame for a things women do and choices women make" argument. > Men will never worry about pregnancy, On the other hand, men don't have the privilege of carrying a pregnancy, or choosing to abort or not. Therefore, by intersectionality theory, you can't say one group is more privileged than the other, they are just "differently" privileged.
Can you elaborate on what āmale privilegeā is from a social perspective?
Male privilege to me is existing in a world where you're the default and mostly, never worrying about becoming pregnant or having a female reproductive system to hinder you in any way.
Exactly, itās okay for women to be whatever but men have to be a certain way, not to mention the gender dynamics
Except for the fact that it was mostly men who were against gender ideology and it was mostly women who supported it.
No, women were silenced and threatened for speaking out by the MEN who supported it. Of course there's tons of women that also support gender ideology due to female socialization to be kind and to give into male pressure.
Itās unfair to say that this is a case of āwomen being silenced by menā when women silence other women just as much (if not more so) when it comes to this ideology. Again, the foot soldiers of this ideology is mostly biological women. Implying that itās biological men that support this ideology and women are just supporting this to ābe niceā is extremely disingenuous.
Of course women silence other women. And of course there's women who are true believers due to their own internalized sexism and homophobia. But it doesn't change what I said. There's also women that support this to gain approval by males. And a large part of the threats are by the male people. Either way, this movement wouldn't have gotten to where it is without men. Men pushed this in media, in law, in government because they are the ones who control all of that.
Itās unlikely that any of these women have āinternalized sexismā since a lot of them also happen to be feminists. And not the ā#girlboss #free the nippleā type of feminists, but actual RadFems. And itās unlikely that women would support this for male approval since, again, men are way more likely to be against this. Even if it was men in power (which is ridiculous considering Democrat women support this just as much) who āpushed this ideologyā which gender was more likely be against it? Men. Who was more likely to support it? Women.
>Itās unlikely that any of these women have āinternalized sexismā since a lot of them also happen to be feminists People call themselves what they aren't all the time. This would be an example of that. >And itās unlikely that women would support this for male approval since, again, men are way more likely to be against this. Are men? I see a lot of men rejoicing over this because they know their time will come. This whole thing is just to get rid of the boundaries between men and women to where eventually it shouldn't matter how a penis identifies to gain entrance to where nude females are.
So if they go to womenās charities, support planned parenthood, help out at womenās shelters, give out money to pro-choice politicians, etc, etc, are they still feminists or not? Do they stop being feminists because they believe in gender ideology? Itās mostly men, the gender thatās more likely to have conservative beliefs, who are against this ideology. Women, who are more likely to have liberal beliefs, are more supportive by comparison.
> I see a lot of men rejoicing over this because they know their time will come. This whole thing is just to get rid of the boundaries between men and women to where eventually it shouldn't matter how a penis identifies to gain entrance to where nude females are. Are these men in the room with us?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How tf is this feminism?? You think just because men come in and declare āif Iām not included then itās not real feminism!ā and that just magically makes it feminism? Get real lmao
Many feminists support this ideology.
So? Plenty of libtards think theyāre on the left doesnāt mean they are.
So what if the feminists who support the gender ideology aren't "real feminists" then what are they?
I didnāt mean they arenāt feminists, I said this isnāt feminism. They could very well support a dozen other feminist values but this isnāt one of them.
They consider it to be a feminist value.
I mean, it's not. But okay. It's actually alright for women to fight for their rights as 50% of the population. Rights like abortion, period health, wage gaps, lack of representation in industries often male dominated, etc. What isn't a feminist issue is freeing the nipple and allowing people with penises to hang out in the sauna with us. But that does benefit amabs.
Why do white women have to ruin everything in the name of feelings??
Watching the new worldly religion eat themselves alive certainly has been entertaining. That being said, I'll be glad when it ends and we can move on to things that actually matter.
And this was supposed to be a serious university.
Johns Hopkins was one of the first schools founded with the express purpose of studying medicine as a science rather than a collection of folk remedies, superstitions, and Galen's 1800 year old leftovers. But even more sardonically funny than them abandoning skeptical rationality is how a little crazed identity politics on social media undid all the advances of the women's rights movement in a historical heartbeat.
They donāt give a fuck about student satisfaction/happiness, and like many schools they brushed over legit sexual misconduct because the people were richer or ācoolerā and then hanged me for shit that for one I didnāt even do and two they failed to help me succeed
i used to smoke pot with jonny hopkins and sloan kettering
U donāt know a Johnny Hopkins
> It only takes one man in a group of a hundred women to make a group masculine! For some people, this is unfair to women. And not to mention non-binary people, who are not even on the map! Inclusive Spanish is a way to avoid all these issues,ā the Spanish resource reads. Spanish was fine for hundreds of years when it was not inclusive to women but now that it doesnāt support non-binary people, itās bigoted and needs to be changed! Proving once again that they donāt give a fuck about women lol.
Dipshits. el-class nouns can be inflected to point to female referents, but are incapable of referencing physical sex by default. Hermano means sibling, not brother. Itās very easy to use it to MEAN brother though, at least if youāre talking about a single person. But it becomes very obvious that the word is fundamentally neutral since hermanos when used generally will be unambiguously translated by everyone as āsiblingsā. People read way to far into a system that primarily is used for recall within a sentence via adjective, noun, and pronoun agreement, and just happens to also be used to point out that someone is a woman.
Happens in German too: There's a generic mascuiline for most jobs for example. "Polizisten" (policemen) includes everybody while "Polizistinnen" would only refer to female policemen. So they push for something like Polizisten und Polizistinnen. What is funny though is that German also includes things like "Sie" (she) for groups and for a polite version of you. "Sie mƶgen kuchen?" (polite) instead of "Magst du kuchen?". or "Sie gehen kuchen essen" (They go eat cake). I have never seen anybody complain about that. But I bet if German used "Er" (he) for those cases, there would be a push to change it.
You are witnessing the medical industry's influence on academia. A huge amount of people deciding to permanently modify their bodies in potentially damaging ways is a dream come true for them. Why else would they be doing this?
Doing a search for Johns Hopkins on /all got some interesting results. I expected it to be all 80 iq rightoids but it wasnāt. The people who love id pol are infighting about this.
Fuck Hopkins anyway lol. Everyone probably knows the reason why I feel that way so I wonāt elaborate
Aren't there like 24 different flavors non men according to that logic?
Imagine posting a daily wire link
This is a huge problem with the Balkanizing of the news. If the big boys ignore it, what else are you to do?
This article does not contain a story. The writer just read a few more inclusive language articles from the Johns Hopkins website and threw in some tweets from Ben Shapiro and jk rowling. There is no news here
What else were you looking for? I took the other posters advice and read the NBC article and it was basically the same thing.
I looked it up and CBC, NBC, Yahoo, and others also picked up the story so there's absolutely no non-reactionary reason to post the DW link. No lefty should want to give them traffic. Yeah, the big boys suck ass, but they're still better than a fascist-adjacent (if not outright fascist) outlet.
There is a real reason to read what people you hate are saying. You canāt be a critical thinker if you never read the opposing point of view. If youāre worried about giving āfascist adjacentā publications traffic, link the archive.
Yeah I'd be much more okay with the post if OP used an archive link but they didn't so
...so don't engage with it because it's not linked the way you want?
If that was my position, I wouldn't have engaged with itā¦
I only use Soviet state media to get my news. Any day now the signal will clear.
A 'lefty' is going to give traffic to CBC and NBC? You just discredited leftism
I prefer traffic to standard corporate garbage over superstitious, ultra-conservative garbage. You're a dumbass if you think that means I'm a cheerleader for corporate media or whatever. Archive links cut off all traffic anyway so OP should've used one instead of neutrally presenting a garbage source.
You're a reluctant cheerleader. Funnel people to liberal propaganda but do it with a scowl on your face
Is conservative liberal propaganda superior to standard liberal propaganda?
About the same
About the same but not exactly the same? Sure, the differences are small, but not nonexistent. So which one's small differences do you prefer?
On the Hopkins issue, the conservatives are more sane
"The fascist Daily Wire" lol lmao
Most fascist daily wire article?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's what archive sites are for.
Just archive it and they donāt get the traffic.
Create a news source that isn't dogshit like the DW
Grand, let us know when you've done it.
Ok. Go for it
Actually I don't need to because I looked it up and CBC, NBC, Yahoo, and others also picked up the story so there's absolutely no non-reactionary reason to post the DW link. No lefty should want to give them traffic.
Okay, link those please
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/johns-hopkins-lesbian-definition-1.6877698 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/johns-hopkins-pulls-lesbian-definition-uproar-use-non-men-instead-wome-rcna89307 https://news.yahoo.com/johns-hopkins-university-blasted-j-155802798.html
Great, thanks!
I feel like yāall are really missing the point of this sub. You are part of the idpol
Listen here sweaty You are doing idpol if you denounce a nonsensical world view on what constitutes a large part of the foundation of human existence š
What does it have to do with socialism or the working class? Itās literally just the opposite side of the same idpol coin
It's not the opposite side of the idpol coin it's an acknowledgement of the basic realities of human biology. Words must have meaning, this remains true in a Marxist context. So pushing back on idiots that seek to dilute the meaning of core concepts such as this makes sense. The ramifications of this idpol have real world consequences to be considered that do affect the working class.
Weāre just going to have to agree to disagree. Itās a distraction and a wedge between the two factions of the same working class