I commented something similar on the model thread here but it made get to thinking so im making a threadthe standards for passing have risen to such an insane degree its weird watching shows from the 2000s/early 2010s nowLike if breaking bad released today marie would get transvestigated despite being a capital C cis women and looking pretty normal overallblah blah transphobia is steeped in misogyny wahh wah wah wahhhh "passing is toxic!!!!!" wahh wahhh i dont care I DONT CARE4chan trannies overestimate the degree to which humans are sexually dimorphic while every other space underestimates it
>>43740984passing on /tttt/ means looking like a surged up .0001% dubai toilet with filters on irl. ever notice how every mtf on here is like <=1% male height too?
>>43740984holy cishonshe is 5'9 too
>>43740984people said marie looked like a tranny back then too
>>43741190no they didn't, zoomie
>>43741202they did though, zoomielady gaga was accused of having a dick in like 2009
>>43741217which was notable solely because it was a bizarre conspiracy theory that somehow gained prominence, since nobody even thought about trans people back then.
>>43741263clearly people did think about trannies back then, it was so prolific that gaga addressed the rumors by saying "maybe I do have a penis" or whateverbailey jay was famous by 2011trannies had been featured in plenty of shitty comedy movies for decades by then, ace ventura was in 1994
>>43741190>>43741217>>43741298you are deranged. this is like taking seriously people who said justin bieber is a lesbian
>>43741648I don't get why this makes you madobjectively yes, people were transvestigating random celebrities in the 2000s. Trannies were not invented in 2016.
>>43741721you are wrong & retconning. you are doing the same thing as queer historians who state obvious slander as fact
>>43742120it is widely known that lady gaga was accused of being trans in the late 2000s, you are the only one retconning anything
>>43740984social media, 'influencers', filters, socially conservative zeitgeist - skinny is back, bodyshaming is back, conventionally attractive actor casting is in (unless you're netflix), trans panic is in, and everyone knows what trannies look like now thanks to iinternet 2.5..its hard u kno>>43742167ye i remember, other anon is pulling ur leg or rarted, or both
>>43742167>>43742223schizo. no one actually thought lady gaga was a man jfc this is not the same thing as what happens today
>>43742804???Chat even we remember Lady Gaga and Michelle Obama
>>43742840another schizo
>>43742804
>>43740984yeah if r*ddit is a hugbox then this place is some kind of hatebox
>>43742865was bdd always misspelled in this image? weird weird weird
>>43742840>Michelle Obama
>>43743134more like MANchelle
>>43742804https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0WcWkVOQTc>2011
>>43743216this is a joke. you cannot be serious lol!
>>43743153It's MA'AMchelle!
>>43740984nobody cares about her gender because she is subhumanresident trannies otb facemog her to death
>>43742865Tbh shes happier than me or you
>>43740984>transphobia is steeped in misogynyActually, it's seeped in misandry. Can't have those MEN be allowed in the woman's bathroom. We have to protect the women. Fuck those male pigs.>passing is toxicIt literally mindbreaks transphobes. There's nothing toxic about it.>the standards for passing have risen to such an insane degree its weird watching shows from the 2000s/early 2010s now It's because women have become more misandrist, and men have remained just as homophobic and all too quick to keep every other crab in the bucket.The rise in standards for passing is because people love to hate loser men so much. It's a consequence of all the pwople hating on incels.
>>43745944the accusatory transphobia being discussed itt is based in misogyny. misogyny dictates that women's value is in being physically attractive, and masculine women are conventionally considered unattractive. ergo these women are accused of secretly being men as a way to put them down and strip them of value.
>>43745944>>43746115its very obviously both. misandry and misogyny are different expressions of heterosexual behaviour as each side has to be appropriately denigrated so as to feel deprived of being without the approval of the other.
>>43747184>its very obviously bothkinda, newfags need to familiarize themselves with transmisogyny
>>43747749Transmisogyny is a word that roastoids had to invent to downplay misandry
>>43747759when men shill peptides and roids to eachother they're called 'influencers' not groomers
>>43747749>kinda, newfags need to familiarize themselves with transmisogynyand susanstrannies need to familliarise themselves with wittig
>>43745944It's steeped in oppositional sexism. Scope creep of what misogyny and misandry is makes this conversation messy but it's oppositional sexism first and foremost.
>>43747789And the same men who do that are held solely responsible for the end of liberalism, misogynistic mass shootings, male loneliness, among other social ills. But I guess there's no misandry since no one calls them groomers.
>>43748263does their work have pictograms, i cant read
>>43748351tragically no, im afraid youre on your own on that one
>>43741006> looking like a surged up .0001% dubai toilet with filters on irl.GOD I wish that was me, you have no idea how much I *nneeeeeeeed* thist. chaser (straight)
>>43748281nah they get invited to the war room to sip "johnnie walker black label" with the boysi think misandry and misogyny are two ends of the same stick, being moreso emergent phenomena of power dynamics at play in sexism vs. distinct concepts in isolation, masculinity/feminity being analogous to dominance/submissionam i being retaarded in my thoughts?>>43748361damn im so angry im gonna go stand by the roadside and yell at cars for 2 hours, maybe even shake my fist too
>>43746115>misogyny dictates that women's value is in being physically attractive, and masculine women are conventionally considered unattractive.Masculine women didn't used to be considered unattractive before 2010. The reason MASCULINE "women" are disliked in 2020s is because of misandry. Rarely do transphobes actually believe they're women.>ergo these women are accused of secretly being men as a way to put them down and strip them of value.Because them being men means they have no value. Sounds very "mysogynistic" desu.>>43747184>its very obviously bothIt's chiefly misandry.>>43747749>kinda, newfags need to familiarize themselves with transmisogynyTransmisogyny doesn't apply unless she passes. Regular cis men experience "transmisogyny" all the time when they do anything remotely feminine. Transmisogyny is just misandry with an exception made for trans women so it's not called what it is, misandry.>>43747789>when men shill peptides and roids to eachother they're called 'influencers' not groomersFirst of all, many people call Clavicular a groomer. Or, at least they hatewatch the fuck out of him. People hate the idea of men doing anything to improve their appearance as it has many uncomfortable implications. Second of all, the shills aren't directly trying to make amabs feminine. Hence they so often get accused of being faggots rather than direct groomers.>>43748272>oppositional sexism first and foremost.It is. Fundamentally, the problem is people stepping outside of their roles. That said, this thing is far worse on the amab side. Faggots get it far worse than lesbians. Trans women get it far worse than trans men.
>>43748742>Fundamentally, the problem is people stepping outside of their roles. That said, this thing is far worse on the amab side. Faggots get it far worse than lesbians. Trans women get it far worse than trans men.This is largely because of the incidental victories of liberal feminism as well as benevolent traditional sexism. Deviant women are "corrected" while deviant men are "removed."
Passflation, physique inflation, liftflation, artflation etc. Social media has made people have super high expectations because they're scrolling all day and inundated with content.
>>43748742>That said, this thing is far worse on the amab side.its also because masculinity is constructed and hierarchical, and male reproduction is "from one to many." so there is the concept of the gigachad, the ultimate male, but there is no ultimate woman; women are a longhouse, a field that is ploughed, a mass waiting to be bred, "from many to one," and men compete to be the one to do so, and the goalpost is always shifting and never cemented. even after the act, it can be revoked, retroactive rape, or women regretting having children with someone after the fact because of the father's inferiority, or loss of status, even if he were the highest status at the time. these qualities simply do not apply to women because of the egg–sperm disparity.
>>43748759Yeah, traditional sexism was always more misandrist than people admit.I wouldn't say the disparity is incidental, though. Feminists go out of their way to ensure absolutely no liberation for men comes from feminists, or at lesst when they do help men, they make a point to snuff it out because it implies men are oppressed and they don't want the movement co-opted. Even though feminism only survives because of patriarchy anyway. Heaven forbid they treat scrotes like people.>>43749667To be fair, femininity is also constructed. It's only possible for women to be that way because masculinity exists. If gender were erased, and somebody figured out how to provide the hormones in an easy fashion(for example, a cheap attachment to the body that releases estrogen or testosterone based on a sensor's reading of when it's needed.), women as a pseudo bourgeoisie class would be cooked.Mind you, neither feminists or billionairs with eeever let this happen. They won't even let guys have AI gfs or sex bots.
it'll hit a breaking point, and probably already is, ugly cissies who are getting transvestigated will find a way to shut it down.
