>>44014596
I fucking hate liberals and conservatives. conservatives are worse, but Both try enforcing stupid shit that make my life miserable. I'm fucking tired of these people.

this is obvious but they will be femboys not troons.

You're retarded, but it's ok

as i get older i realize im not really a leftist i just hate everyone and dont like being poor.

>>44014596
No way conservatives will ever accept us more. The only inevitable outcome is liberals and leftists will hate us more too, which isnt even a prediction when it's been openly happening for years.

>>44014596
you are correct but people on this board are too retarded to understand
thiel being a "gay christian" is just the start of the right becoming gayer and gayer until it's actually trad
>>44014614
just dont bother yourself with politics

>>44014614
Can you elaborate what exactly they do that makes your life worse?

>>44014681
Conservatives are often contrarian, they oppose anything the left supports so once the left starts to strongly oppose trannies, conservatives might start to accept them.
Especially that many right-wingers already masturbate to passing trannies. When it comes to passing trannies, i think they will have no problem with being accepted by conservatives once left turns against trannies.

deranged ramblings from a right wing tranny thinking shes objectively correct and her ideal society will one day manifest

File: IMG_2487.jpg (176 KB, 1242x1214)

176 KB JPG

>>44014596

>>44014734
>>44014735
I am not a tranny and this is not a bait, it's just my observations and logical thinking.
What i say is already manifesting in a way, there is more and more feminists and leftists overall that openly oppose trannies.

>>44014596
I don't see actual leftist turning against us--many are us--but I could definitely see the Dems throw us under the bus. Many already are.

>>44014671
-George Orwell, Down & Out in Paris & London

>>44014596
dysphoria as the sole legitimate socially recognized basis of transness is historically contingent, and it's going to be replaced with a universal right to bodily autonomy and morphological freedom. the movement driving this will be recognizably a leftist movement, the opposition will be recognizably conservative even though it will include some transmedicalists.
eventually this, coupled with increasingly artificial reproduction, leads to the destruction of biological sex and binary gender as coherent concepts, so talking about the political interests of men vs. women will no longer make any sense.

>>44015263
>universal right to bodily autonomy and morphological freedom
there really doesn't seem to be any leftist interest in bodily autonomy beyond abortion

>>44014614
100% agree with you angel

>>44015310
abortion, birth control, hysterectomies, trans surgeries and hrt access, these have all been rights primarily campaigned for by the left

>>44015263
You operate on a wrongful assumption that gender is just a social construct and that you can abolish gender binary with technology, laws or social pressure, which you can't, it's biological and you are born a certain way, you can only change your appearance.
And even if we had laws for total "bodily autonomy and morphological freedom" most women would still dress and present themselves in a feminine way because as i said, it's genetic.
What you are saying is that a "leftist" political movement will abolish feminism (interests of men vs. women) by saying everyone is free to appear however they like and we have artificial wombs therefore gender politics no longer makes sense.
Obviously no leftist/feminist will agree to this since they consider being a woman is more than just looking like one.
Also i don't understand how existance of artificial reproduction would make women less of a women? Even if all babies were born artificially it would not change who women are, men vs women politics would still stay relevant.

>>44015547
mask off LMFAO

>>44014621
ew no

>>44015547
Midwit type beat

>>44015544
the left cares about medical rights of cis women, but the left doesn't care about things like universal right to bodily autonomy. There is no interest on the left for making hormones and other medications easily accessible on the basis of personal freedoms. The left supports a nebulous idea of trans rights, but that doesn't include being able to get estrogen or testosterone without a prescription.

>>44015567
>There is no interest on the left for making hormones and other medications easily accessible
source?

>>44015574
I can't exactly prove a negative. Can you give evidence of leftists advocating for that?

>>44015310
off ctrl-f for surger on political ''programs'' here, real and bleak

>>44014596
>Female to Male trannies still must have sex with men, since no woman wants a balding dickless manlet with small hands for a boyfriend.

Most ftms objectively do better than cisoids like (you), i know you're incapable of seeing the appeal but most other pooners that aren't in relationships seem to do fine picking up cis women.

>>44015553
>>44015562
Good counter arguments, kek
You have nothing. Feminism requires existance of women as a separate and distinct category to men and saying this category can be abolished as long as men can appear feminine and we have artificial reproduction is stupid and again, something no leftist or feminist will agree to

>>44015547
honestly this is mostly right and you'd think trans people would be less blind about it. Cis people want to be men and women, just like trans people want to be men and women.
The idea that abolition of strict gender roles would lead to the abolition of all gender roles, all gender, and then all biological sex for cis people through medical intervention is about as realistic as saying that trans people wouldn't want to transition if gender roles were abolished. It's obvious that this isn't the case because gender dysphoria is also physical, so why would this be any different for cis people? Cis people like their gender and sex for the most part. There are small changes that can be made medically to improve people's quality of life, but the reality is that if you give people freedom, cis men use medical technology to become MORE masculine and cis women use medical technology to become MORE feminine. This is what most people actually want.

>>44015547
>You operate on a wrongful assumption that gender is just a social construct and that you can abolish gender binary with technology, laws or social pressure, which you can't, it's biological and you are born a certain way, you can only change your appearance.
no, i'm operating on the assumption that it's biological and therefore changeable
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biology-is-mutable/
>Also i don't understand how existance of artificial reproduction would make women less of a women? Even if all babies were born artificially it would not change who women are, men vs women politics would still stay relevant.
sex roles are downstream of women bearing children
when new people can be born without that, everything changes. read shulamith firestone.

>>44015626
The abolishment of women would be a good thing though, if it eliminates inequality

>>44015669
Did you read the link? When this guy claimed "biology is changable" he didn't claimed you can change your gender, he claimed you can fix iron defficiency or obesity lmao
>sex roles are downstream of women bearing children
Gender roles are biological and in fact once you remove any external pressure, they get elevated to an absurd level.
>when new people can be born without that, everything changes. read shulamith firestone.
As i said, humans aren't born blank slates that you can write anything you want onto, we come prewritten with genetics and our behavior, including gender roles, is also genetic.

To simplify, if you think we could somehow rise men to make them like playing with dolls instead of cars you are delusional.

File: Screenshot_2026-06-24-18-(...).jpg (886 KB, 1080x2026)

886 KB JPG

>>44015582
these are some examples

File: image-86.png (423 KB, 859x862)

423 KB PNG

>>44015915
wrong image whoops

>>44015915
>>44015924
while this is great, it's only bringing us back to a moderate liberal baseline. This seems to be about the democratic socialists of america and the uk greens, who are both relatively left wing, taking on the brave position of "trans people should have healthcare". It's hard to call that progressive when you can get hormones without a prescription in many parts of south america and asia.
It's nothing to do with universal bodily autonomy, which would actually be radical in modern western politics.

>>44015924
regretfully, without the specific surgeries coverage and international access to them not mentioned, ima have to say ''vagueposting for potential dismissal''.

>>44015996
diregard the double negative

>>44015834
>he didn't claimed you can change your gender, he claimed you can fix iron defficiency or obesity lmao
the difference is just a matter of degree. no law of physics forbids it.
>As i said, humans aren't born blank slates that you can write anything you want onto, we come prewritten with genetics and our behavior, including gender roles, is also genetic.
our genes aren't handed down immutably by god, they're shaped by the selection pressures we face
humans have a bimodal distribution of sex that's very close to being actually binary because that is what works for a sexually reproducing species. when we go beyond the limitations of "natural" sexual reproduction, all kinds of humans who would not have been able to reproduce suddenly gain that ability. new types of human become not just possible but sustainable and favored.

>>44015986
universal access to hrt and surgeries is implied they cannot state that outright to avoid misinterpretation and manufactured outrage but if you read between the lines that is what they are saying. like you have to acknowledge that despite leftist movements being more popular than ever they are also more neutered than ever and don't really make a harsh stance or take any action even for their corr principles, not just trans rights

>>44015669
>sex roles are downstream of women bearing children
the problem is that you're seeing all sex roles as regressive. Consider that women are de-sexed in the places with the least rights. Women are forced to hide their bodies, and the level of oppression usually scales pretty literally to how much has to be hidden. Sometimes women are even physically de-sexed through genital mutilation. But these societies, women have the most children. Isn't that a paradox?
compare to societies where women have the most rights, most freedoms, and most feminism. In the most liberal democracies, it is common for women to wear little clothing, make heavy use of cosmetics, get feminizing plastic surgery, or even use camera filters to appear more feminine on social media. But these women aren't having more children, they're having less children than women ever have in all of history!
why should we assume that upon the popularization of artificial wombs, which would absolutely crater natural birthrates so fucking hard, why would this lead to the abolition of binary sex and gender?

>>44016046
>the difference is just a matter of degree. no law of physics forbids it.
Can you then describe me a process of how can a person change it's gender?
Your gender is formed at the cell level in the womb and once you are formed into a human, you can't change it. It would require you to change almost every cell in your body and even if that happened, you would not be the same person anymore anyway. You would have completely different interests, talents, opinions etc. since they are also genetic.
What you want to do requires magic.
>our genes aren't handed down immutably by god
Our genes are handed down by our parents.
What you are talking about are religious writings of mentally ill jewish woman, they have nothing to do with reality but you are treating them like gospel.

>>44016166
>It would require you to change almost every cell in your body and even if that happened, you would not be the same person anymore anyway
you're going to have a pretty big existential crisis as soon as you figure out how fast your cells die

>>44014596

i have big lips and boobs because i like attention Faggot

Transmaxxing is showing people have free will to change their gender.

Conservatives and liberals and TERFs have all been fighting over scientific and medical bullshit, AGP vs HSTS bullshit. Liberals believe you have a gender assigned at birth, conservatives don’t believe in gender and only sex.

Society is not ready to face the fact that taking estrogen and feminizing can improve your life and can be completely voluntarily. This will come to fruition after the current looksmaxxing culture matures with normies. We’re in the final stages of men still trying to improve themselves as men.

I think the libertarian opinion is trans is correct: you can do whatever you want with your body.

>>44015263
This

>>44016231
I think you are going to have an existential crisis as soon as you figure out they get renewed.
And what that even has to do with anything? How does cells dying and regenerating gives you the ability to become a different gender

File: meedhsken-tea.png (401 KB, 2000x2224)

401 KB PNG

>>44014596
correction: the crimson centre of sanguine socialism shall dominate as the most pro-trans movement in the future

while you are correct that there is a subversivist current in the "left" wing that dislikes binary transsexuals, there is still a stronger precedent for conservatives to be against transsexuals. we can highlight here a few points. the first is that right wing politics has increasingly concerned itself with topics regarding demographic replacement and birth rates. trannies, a population that actively performs self-castration, must necessarily have an antagonistic relationship with such tendencies amongst the right. another issue is that while binary transexuals may at times rigid gender roles, there is a deeper amphibology in terms of sexual characteristics that is unsettling to conservative thought. while the nazis did give trannies surgery at times, they were careful to make such operations not take up the spotlight in public life. they were capable of finding a place for transsexuals, insofar as they conformed to the proper social roles, but there was still an ambivalence with regard to the act of transitioning itself. we are no longer living in the times of weimer germany. discourse with regards to transsexuals is far more prevalent, and there are various institutional and psychic forces that tend to cathect around the transgender section above other culture war topics. as such, this latent ambivalence would not be capable of being suppressed. third, the very act of sexual transition, insofar as it involves a movement beyond natural biological homeostasis, is inherently violent. this is something that all bourgeois logics of biopolitics are incapable of squaring with themselves. we can see this clearly with the diy orchi poster who garnered a lot of disgust from the right. at the end of the day, most people within this liberal order right or left are not be capable of not reacting in such ways, even many left liberals do so as well

Democrats will flip on trans rights but Republicans wont

>>44016336
Yes. Very soon the only people supporting trannies will be libertarians. It might even happen during the 2028 election, lgbtq wokeness is part of why dems loss in 2024. Newsom is anti-lgbtq and the current front runner for dem presidential candidate in 2028.

>>44014596
>Trannyism reinforces traditional gender roles, something the left spent past 100 years trying to destroy.
except the part that the right requires gender roles to be directly downstream of biology. it is essential to their worldview. Women are women, are caretakers, because they give birth.

this is clearly bait, or you are an actual moron, idk u choose.

File: 1777767028725542.jpg (212 KB, 900x1200)

212 KB JPG

>>44016332 (cont)
i think the major error you are making here is still falling into the dichotomy of "right" and "left". ultimately however, this is a binary that is a projection of our current bourgeois atlanticist architectonic order of the eschaton that only presents a rigid range of possibility for technical futurities, ignores questions of weltanschauung and sovereignty, as well as presupposes a particular biopolitics of integrity and "human rights" which it takes to be self-evident. also i think you might be looking too much at klansfems and homofash posters which possibly serve as a false signal. while the klansfem phenomenon might grow somewhat, i do not think it is necessarily sustainable due to its latent contradictions. the reason why it has grown has to do with deeper underlying problems with left liberalism which tends to push away certain transsexuals, as well as the general failure of liberalism in its capacity to meet the material needs of transsexuals (and by this i do not simply mean medical care, but also other basic necessities such as housing and job security which are problems that effect trannies significantly). there is also the issue of optics and the sense of culture has gone the other direction politically. however, all of these points primarily concern trannies themselves, and do not have much to do with the larger right wing population. it is a one-sided relationship.

>>44015567
>>44015631
check these out
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/zine/aspcte.html
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/zine/pisas.html

>>44014596
retarded post but picrel made me hard

Men are against trannies because of their fragile masculinity and cis women are against trannies because they want less competition.

>>44014596
What sexual competition, bro? You don't have a vagina.

>>44016332
>right wing politics has increasingly concerned itself with topics regarding demographic replacement and birth rates
Low birth rates are caused by high status of females and as i said, transgenderism lowers status of women which rises the birth rate.
When women have low status and have to compete over men, birth rate is very high. Since women only date up in a social hierarchy, society with high status of females won't have children because women don't reproduce with low status men.
Also, when it comes to birth rates, it's the women that matter. Men becoming trannies does not affect the birth rates negatively since every man has almost unlimited sperm, only eggs are scarce.
You can make an argument that ftm trannies affect birth rates in a negative way but right-wingers are also concerned with eugenics and you can make a point, many of this trannies are very dysgenic and should not reproduce anyway.
I do agree that right-wingers might find genital mutilation too disgusting but it's not required and not every trans person cuts their balls off in their kitchen.
Obviously, once the left rejects trangenderism, to be accepted by conservatives trannies will have to follow traditional gender roles and don't mutilate their genitals but i think many of them will be happy to do so, those that don't will form transbian polycules.

>>44016542
tsmt

>>44014596
to add to this, if the trans women had a mostly male upbringing they are still a net positive to the economic well being of that society, and incurring no cost and weeding out men that would have been sent to die in pointless wars.

This also makes the world more peaceful as a whole.

>>44016568
Was not talking about only sexual competition. In general trans women take away from cis pussy privilege in all regards, deflating the value and privileges of their pussy. This is why TERFS want trans women out of all cis women spaces.

>>44016305
the only thing that makes a cell male or female is the hormonal conditions it grows in

>>44016701
It's the genetic code inside the cell that makes it male or female.

>>44016774
that's actually not how it works

File: tea.png (2.08 MB, 1201x1443)

2.08 MB PNG

>>44016554
low birth rates are caused by financialization, the reshaping of the division of labour along sexual lines, and the erosion of third spaces. the first presents debt and progressive dispossession as ever looming threats which disincentivized already existing couples from producing offspring. this is complemented by the second point. women are now expected to work in order to properly provide financially for a family. this means that it is difficult to take care of children unless they are sent to day cares (further financial burden). third, with the erosion of third places where people are able to organically meet people and hang out, the dating market has shifted. when dating is based upon dating profiles, immediate looks and other stats become overly accentuated. social media in general encourages vanity over substance and this has hence shifted collective dating behaviours
>transgenderism lowers status of women which rises the birth rat
women are 50% of the population while mtfs are only .5% of the population. trannies, because they are not capable of reproduction, are also unsuitable mates. sure you can date one, but if you want to settle down and actually have kids, they are not serious competition for cis women
>Men becoming trannies does not affect the birth rates negatively since every man has almost unlimited sperm
you need a man and a woman to raise a child and each man in monogamy is locked to one woman so men are still important
>but right-wingers are also concerned with eugenics
the modern right is a very resentiment filled movement that now appeals to dysgenic losers alongside competent working class men. i wouldnt say eugenics is particularly important to them anymore
>those that don't will form transbian polycules
this is ridiculous. there are plenty of people who have genital dysphoria but are not transbians. transsexual culture has always been pro-srs. just because not everyone wants it doesnt mean we dont virtually all support it

>>44016794
>low birth rates are caused by financialization, the reshaping of the division of labour along sexual lines, and the erosion of third spaces.
This is false.
Poorer people in rich countries, as well as poorer countries overall have higher birth rate, economy has little to do with the birth rates.
Explain to me, why Sweden, rich country with generous welfare state has low birth rate while warzones like Afghanistan have high birth rate?
Why do muslims inside Sweden have much higher birth rate than native swedes, despite living in the same place and in the same economy (muslims are even poorer than native swedes)
Everything is obviously about status of males and females.
>it is difficult to take care of children unless they are sent to day cares (further financial burden)
When both parents work, they have money to hire a babysitter/daycare or just let the grandparents take care of the kids.
As stated above, poorer people have higher birth rates so this argument does not make sense anyway.
>you need a man and a woman to raise a child and each man in monogamy is locked to one woman so men are still important
If women have to compete for men under monogamous system birth rates are so high few left over women won't make a dent, in fact we already had a society like this post ww2 or any other war.
>i wouldnt say eugenics is particularly important to them anymore
Depends, i do agree that Nick Fuentes types aren't very eugenic but not all right wingers are groypers.

>>44014596
the left in the uk already flipped on trannies and nothing changed on the right. I think a similar thing will happen in all other anglo countries

is it true that chuddies and trannies are cuddle compatible?
do we know?

File: itsover.png (838 KB, 842x833)

838 KB PNG

>>44017320
Fuck i could have used this image.
I will make similar thread on /pol/ tomorrow, i wonder what they will say.

>>44014596
I hate normie retards so god damn much. I just want to reduce my gender dysphoria I don't care about YOUR FUCKING GENDER IDEOLOGIES, IM NOT MAKING A FUCKING STATEMENT about if you have to wear certain clothes. HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

File: werwerwer.jpg (54 KB, 1280x720)

54 KB JPG

>>44017380

i love u and ur right

File: 5wy659956rsc1.png (169 KB, 651x680)

169 KB PNG

>>44016999
>Explain to me, why Sweden, rich country with generous welfare state has low birth rate while warzones like Afghanistan have high birth rate?
i did not say poor vs rich i said financialization. they are not the same thing. in sweden both men and women are expected to work meanwhile in third world countries women are generally expected to do housekeeping rather than have a full time job. it is one thing to be poor and it is another thing to be unable to actually ever take care of your kids. richer and poorer areas do not have the same economic opportunities but they also do not have the same cost of living which factor into this as well. while it is true that there is a relation between poverty and birthrate, the relation is not linear. in some cases couples with more wealth actually do reproduce more often. see pic rel
>they have money to hire a babysitter/daycare or just let the grandparents take care of the kids.
this is not always possible for a lot of people. high cost of living makes it difficult to actually ensure that you can afford such services. grandparents is a logistical difficulty as they may or may not be suitable for raising a child at their advanced age, or it might be difficult to deal with the difference in geographic location between parents and grandparents in a practical way, among other problems. there was a time in the west when a man could work a typical 9-5 while women would just do house chores. fertility rates were generally higher back then
>in fact we already had a society like this post ww2 or any other war
this was not simply because sexual competition but the demands of reindustrialization and the economic rebound which propelled america into eventually becoming a super power
>not all right wingers are groypers
the ones that are not groypers or mainstream while supporting eugenics in the current year are increasingly fringe. you pretty much never see a modern right wing influencer simply calling incels dysgenic for instance

>>44017476
also notice how in this graph you can see how everyone's birthrates, including those that are poor in the united states have dropped. this is while their income hasnt actually changed. this is likely an effect of persistent stagflation and rising costs of living which effects everyone equally

an issue with the narrative about relative worth is that a woman can only settle down with one man at the end of the day, so if they settle down and get married it has to settle into equilibrium anyways. it doesnt matter how it looks like, whether there are men or women who are having more struggle having children, the couples that do end up together form pairs and the amount of children these couples have is determined by economic factors

>>44017476
According to your graph, women with decent birth rate that aren't poor are the richest ones.
I think it further proves my point about status, since women with that much of family income marry into very high status males.
Medium-high income women are usually college educated, they have the lowest birth rate because they struggle with finding a man with high enough status.
Still, my point stands, poorer people generally have higher birth rate with exception of ultra rich.
>it is one thing to be poor and it is another thing to be unable to actually ever take care of your kids.
> high cost of living makes it difficult to actually ensure that you can afford such services.
I don't know if you realize this but you say contradictory statements.
You claim third world countries despite being poor still can manage having children but first world countries can't because they are too poor to afford them.
What you didn't address is that POOR people INSIDE first world countries have higher amount of children as well. You can't claim:"first world countries are too expensive to have children" while that's the case.
>man could work a typical 9-5 while women would just do house chores.
Men had way higher status back then.
>which propelled america into eventually becoming a super power
Most countries had a baby boom post-war, not only america (i am not even american myself) and if anything, industralization and good economy lowers the birth rate as poorer and more rural countries have higher birth rate.

I am going to sleep, if you want discuss further you can write me on discord: tauler99

File: 1778326898812694.jpg (86 KB, 688x405)

86 KB JPG

>>44017730
>marry into very high status males
that doesnt matter. at the end of the day they are already married sexual competition is moot. the only factor left is economic
>You claim third world countries despite being poor still can manage having children but first world countries can't because they are too poor to afford them.
as i said it is not simply about rich vs poor. there are plenty of people that are poor but still own houses because they live in places that are not effected by housing bubbles. there are plenty of places as well where poor women are still capable of being full-time housewives because you only need one person working because again the cost of living is still relatively low.
>What you didn't address is that POOR people INSIDE first world countries have higher amount of children as well
the graph i posted already points out that this is not always the case. moreover, even when we focus upon a specific country, different communities have different costs of living and have different forms of social organization. again, you cant just look at ses
>industralization and good economy lowers the birth rate
you are confused on the order of events here. during the process of actual industrialization, you need as many people as possible in order to develop the productive forces and maximize profit. this promotes birthrates. however, after things have industrialized, monopolies start to develop and things become increasingly financialized. this corresponds to a tendency towards gradual deindustrialization (as we have been seeing in the west), more debt, higher cost of living relative to income, and lower birth rates. western countries are in a paradoxical position where on paper they are wealthy (partly thanks to currency hegemony), but everyone is in debt, no one actually owns everything, and everyone including the women need to work. the actual material premises of western countries do not actually square with the pretences of the financial system

>>44014596
Trvke

tl;dr please?

>>44017377
will /pol/ not just make fun of you or being from /lgbt/ or are they ok with us?

>>44017380
>I hate normie retards so god damn much.
based

>>44017955
also it should be pointed out again how u can see >>44017476 birth rates for poor people in the US have reduced over time and they are now below replacement levels. this points towards financialization and stagflation being major culprits