@FtttG's banner p

FtttG

Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.

7 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 13 13:37:36 UTC

https://firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com/


				

User ID: 1175

FtttG

Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.

7 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 13 13:37:36 UTC

					
				

				

				

				

				

					

User ID: 1175

I agree with much of your comment, although I question your dismissal of slippery slope arguments as intrinsically fallacious.

As for the sequel's main character -- look, I grew up on early chan imageboards and the unfiltered early 2000s internet so I have a pretty high tolerance and probably a quite warped sense of what's within the bounds of good taste -- but even in my opinion, that's a 7 year old's face on a young woman's body.

Echoing what @RenOS said below – between the ages of 26-27 I was in a relationship with a Chinese woman who was a year younger than me. Whenever she went to buy beer in a shop, she was asked to show her ID, literally every single time. (The fact that she was five feet tall certainly didn't help.) The median East Asian woman legitimately looks significantly more childlike than the median white, Hispanic or black woman.

New Year's resolution check-in:

  • Went to the gym three times last week and again yesterday evening. Can deadlift 1.84x my bodyweight for 3 reps, squat 1.28x for 6 reps and bench press .87x for 6 reps.
  • Have not consumed any pornography since waking up on January 1st.

How goes it @self_made_human, @thejdizzler, @birb_cromble, @ThomasdelVasto and @falling-star?

I second this. The "mama bear" phenomenon is absolutely real, but I'm not sure if the average woman is quite as willing to put herself in harm's way for the benefit of a complete stranger as the average man is. And that's as it should be: men are stronger and faster than women, eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap.

Ahem:

“You can’t compare this to, like, poor people who complain about being poor. Food and stuff are basic biological human needs! Sex isn’t essential for life! It’s an extra, like having a yacht, or a pet tiger!”

I know that feminists are not always the biggest fans of evolutionary psychology. But I feel like it takes a special level of unfamiliarity with the discipline to ask “Sure, evolution gave us an innate desire for material goods, but why would it give us an deep innate desire for pair-bonding and reproduction??!”

Yeah, I also bristle a little when I see parents getting their very young daughters' ears pierced, but you have to pick your battles.

Claims of rape are still baseless.

You obviously aren't familiar with "Karen" White. What do you mean by "baseless"? Do you mean that no trans-identified inmate in a women's prison has ever raped one of their fellow inmates?

According to the Guardian, there were 97 sexual assaults in the female estate between 2016-19, of which 7 were committed by transgender inmates. At the time there were 3,795 people housed in the female estate, of whom 34 were transgender. In other words, a transgender inmate is more than ten times more likely to sexually assault a fellow inmate than a cisgender female inmate.

But sure, "baseless".

It's also to prevent flashers from doing their thing. Indecent exposure is a crime. There are lots of men who get off on exposing their genitalia to women who don't want to see it, and yes, a non-negligible proportion of those are trans-identified males.

In most human societies, it is not as easy to identify the sex of another person.

Ah yes, one of those incredibly difficult tasks that babies learn to do before they can walk or talk.

they're banning trans people completely

I don't propose banning trans people (whatever that means). I don't propose rounding trans people and herding them into camps. I propose making people use the public facilities and compete in the sporting events that concord with their sex. I'm not saying "trans people can't compete in sporting events ever"; I'm saying "if they wish to compete in sporting events, trans people must compete in the sporting events corresponding to their sex, just like everyone else".

Photos from the Olympics clearly show Khelif being carried on their coach's shoulders and their coach's hands touching Khelif's bare skin. In theocratic MENA countries it's a big no-no for a man to touch the bare skin of a woman who isn't his wife (many women won't even shake hands with a man when meeting him). The coach definitely knew.

Even if she does have XY chromosomes (not confirmed),

Strange, given Khelif has admitted it.

Cutting off an arm is clearly a much worse (and more irreversible) level of harm than surgery on your genitals.

While the former would have a much greater impact on your day-to-day activities, never being able to have children seems like a really big imposition. It would be interesting to do a poll asking people if they'd rather lose an arm or all functioning in their genitalia.

Has anyone ever gone to jail because of pronouns?

At least one British man was convicted for misgendering, although his conviction was overturned on appeal. Something similar happened to a British woman, who was convicted for calling a trans-identified male a man, a conviction that was likewise overturned.

To the best of my knowledge no one has actually been sent to prison for misgendering, but at least two people have been arrested and held in jail cells for misgendering.

you'll notice that all they've done is change the terms to "AMAB" and "AFAB", respectively.

Which amounts to destruction. No one's sex is "assigned" at birth, like you just arbitrarily bestowed a sex on them but another one would have done just as well. Sexes are observed at birth. The claim that a doctor simply "assigns" them on a whim does, in fact, amount to a fundamental demolition of what the word "sex" means. Which would be bad enough if that was all trans activists were doing, which it isn't. See the absurd attempts to portray sex as a "spectrum", the inability of medical doctors to give a straight answer to simple questions like "can men get pregnant?", the replacement of commonly used anatomical terms with ghastly, dehumanising substitutes like "front hole", "chestfeeding", "birthing person" and "menstruators"...

It would be bad enough if "all" trans activists had done/wanted to do was replace the words "male" and "female" with "AMAB" and "AFAB" respectively. But it's abundantly obvious that that is not all they have done or want to do. Frankly, it strains credibility that you are so ignorant of the specifics of this group you're so routinely going to bat for.

Well, at least you're acknowledging that a new religious movement is what trans is.

"Genocide" is obviously the wrong word because genocide means targeting an ethnic group for extermination, and trans people aren't an ethnic group. Over time, a religious order can become a distinct ethnic group provided they only marry each other (you'd be amazed how often I have to explain to people that the Holocaust was not an example of religious persecution, as the Nazis targeted anyone of the Jewish ethnicity, regardless of whether they were practising or were even aware of their heritage), but I don't get the impression that this description is likely to apply to trans people any time soon. Sure, members of the Blue Tribe tend to endorse gender ideology and tend to intermarry, but most people who endorse gender ideology are not themselves trans. And as a result of the medical interventions they've undergone, trans people are disproportionately likely to be unable to have children anyway.

If (as you more or less concede) taking HRT and puberty blockers is more akin to a holy sacrament than anything we think of as medical care in the ordinary sense of the term, and if top/bottom surgery are more similar to elective surgical procedures done as part of induction into a tribe (analogous to circumcision or FGM), then in my eyes this strengthens rather than weakens the case for banning these interventions for children. If communion wafers wreaked the changes on children's bodies that HRT does, I'd be in favour of banning them too. Many jurisdictions already ban FGM for teenage girls. I'm aware that this practice is closely affiliated with certain strands of the Islamic faith and hence trying to prevent it could be thought of as "religious persecution": I just don't care. Religion or no, you shouldn't cut off bits of teenage girls' genitals when not medically indicated, and a pluralistic society has to drawn the line somewhere. I haven't been circumcised, but if circumcision were to be banned outright in all Western countries I'd be delighted. I'm sure there would be much waiting and gnashing of teeth from these countries' Muslim and Jewish communities, but this is one case where even an outspoken philosemite such as myself would say "tough".

Agreed. It's a transparent effort to make any criticism of trans activism (or disagreement with any component of its agenda) completely off-limits. See also "Islamophobia".

but I've seen the images they've seen, the collages, the screenshots, the threads, that gave them that opinion on SRS.

What "opinion"? @Shakes gave an entirely accurate description of what a vaginoplasty entails. Are you claiming the description is inaccurate? If so, how?

Doctors would not describe a neovagina as an "open wound".

And a used-car salesman wouldn't describe a lemon as a lemon. Of course the person selling something will try to present it in as flattering a light as possible.

Usually they admit when it wears off somewhat that they're actually miserable and their life sucks.

Citation requested. Many heroin addicts (and alcoholics, gambling addicts etc.) never admit that they have a problem or that their lifestyle is unhealthy.

They're not acting rationally when they shoot up.

Who are you to decree who is and isn't acting rationally? According to you, it doesn't matter if medically transitioning sterilises the recipient and opens them up to a host of health problems they wouldn't have otherwise – the only thing that matters is that they subjectively report feeling happier afterwards. By your own logic, a heroin addict who consistently maintains that heroin makes him happier is acting rationally, and the fact that heroin objectively destroys his mind and body and imposes negative externalities on the broader society is immaterial.

Trans people don't go back and forth like that.

Then why does /r/detrans have a five-figure number of subscribers? Why do most trans children desist before adulthood?

talk about that instead of accusing all trans people of being perverts, rapists, misogynists, etc.

When did I do that?

Welp, the incel hysterics can go to sleep satiated.

The "please let the shooter be white cis" crowd must be breathing a sigh of relief.

If you agree about the possibility of social contagion, you should try to minimize the attention trans people receive, yet anti-trans activists have been the main publicists of transness for about a decade now – trans people really entered the mainstream with the North Carolina "bathroom bill".

Not according to Google Trends. The bathroom bill passed in March 2016. In the US, searches for "Transsexual" peaked in January 2006, searches for "Transgender" peaked in February and September 2025, and searches for "transgender" peaked in July 2015 and May 2016. Searches for "Caitlyn Jenner" and "Laverne Cox" both peaked in June 2015 (Jenner publicly came out in April 2015). Searches for "I am Jazz" and "Jazz Jennings" peaked in July 2015. The idea that people only started talking about transgender issues because of anti-trans activism is baseless.

I also feel compelled to quote from the most popular thing I've ever written:

In his second article from last week, Freddie complains that gender-critical people have vastly overstated the significance of the trans issue, elevating it to the status of “the most important social divide of our time, apparently beating out crime and education and the collapse of the family etc” when trans/NB people make up at most 2-3% of the American population. I agree that, in the scheme of things, trans issues receive a vastly disproportionate share of column inches relative to their import. Where I differ from Freddie is placing the blame for this state of affairs solely at the feet of gender-critical people.

As noted by Wesley Yang, there are 40 separate days in the American political calendar specifically dedicated to celebrating trans people (and an additional 77 days dedicated to celebrating trans people as a subset of LGBTQ+) - in contrast to Black History Month, which famously falls on the shortest month in the Gregorian calendar, despite black Americans making up 13-14% of the US population. President Joe Biden gave a statement on Transgender Day of Remembrance, while Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren made the frankly bizarre campaign promise that her pick for education secretary would have to be personally vetted by a transgender child. There has hardly been a single political issue in the last ten years that hasn’t been framed as “how might this affect trans people?” or “what does this mean for the struggle for trans rights?” in the popular media, no matter how tangential the connection - everything from Black Lives Matter to the war in the Ukraine to gun violence in schools to the cost-of-living crisis to Covid to AI to the Israel-Palestine conflict to Brexit and even climate change (“[exposure to secondhand smoke] can exacerbate the respiratory stress that LGBTQI+ populations may experience from air pollution and chest binding, which is a common practice among transgender men to achieve a flat chest”).

It’s a bit rich to demand that Americans spend more than one-tenth of the calendar year celebrating trans people, “centring their voices” and putting their trials and tribulations at the forefront of their consciousness - only to then turn around and say "umm why do you even care about this, it’s such a tiny issue lol" when some of them offer even the mildest pushback. You brought it up.

And you'll notice that hypothetical mass killings of trans people are very much not actual killings of trans people.

I think this demographic makeup dates back to the SSC days. Even in 2019, Scott noted that he attracted readers across the political spectrum, with the exception of Marxists.

Fair point.

Claims of "trans genocide" focus on alleged actual killings of trans people.

They do not. Consider a representative example, which claims that bathroom bills, laws requiring people to compete in sports corresponding to their sex and elevated risk of suicide for trans people are all part of the "trans genocide" currently ongoing in the US.

Or consider the Wikipedia page about the concept (of course it has a Wikipedia page). Opening paragraph:

Transgender genocide or trans genocide (also transgendercide) is a term used by some scholars and activists to describe the targeting of transgender people as part of wider genocides, as well as describe an elevated level of erasure, systematic discrimination, and violence against transgender people.

By their own admission, trans activists consider the "erasure" of trans people (i.e. failing to affirm them and refer to them by the names and pronouns they wish to be addressed by; refusing to make every other character in a teen drama trans) and "discrimination" against them (i.e. demanding that they be housed in the prisons and hospitals corresponding to their sex; lesbians refusing to have sex with male people who "identify as" women) to be examples of "genocide". They also consider the elevated risk of suicide trans people face as an example of "genocide" i.e. the transgender genocide might be the world's first self-administered genocide. Sui-genocide? Geno-suicide?

Sterilization that is forced upon transgender people in order to obtain legal recognition is characterized by various researchers, including political theorist Anna Carastathis, as a violation of reproductive rights, eugenic, and genocidal.

Some countries make a gender recognition cert conditional on having undergone bottom surgery. This argument is sort of ridiculous because a) no one is forcing you to cut your dick off: if changing the sex on your birth cert is that important to you, that's a you problem; and b) unlike ethnicity, trans identification isn't hereditary.

You'll note that there's a bit of a Morton's fork here, as elsewhere in the article they claim that banning bottom surgery for minors constitutes "genocide". If you stop a trans person getting bottom surgery, that's genocide. If you say that a trans person can change the sex marker on their driver's license only if they get bottom surgery (in order to weed out bad actors), that's also genocide. As near as I can tell it, transgender genocide is just when you don't let trans people do exactly what they want 100% of the time.

Elsewhere in the article, there's a map of the US showing which states have banned gender-affirming care. You'll notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with "actual killings of trans people". The page argues that these laws meet certain criteria mentioned in the United Nations definition of genocide, as they "[cause] serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately [inflict] on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". But this is assuming the conclusion: a major reason for these bans is because of researchers like Hilary Cass investigating and learning that the evidence base for the efficacy of these interventions is appallingly weak and poor quality. This whole discussion was started by you pointing out that some children's mental health worsens after they undergo gender-affirming care. If this is true in general, it implies that legalising gender-affirming care for minors constitutes "transgender genocide"!

Sue E. Spivey and Christine Robinson have argued that the ex-gay movement, which encourages transgender as well as other LGBTQ people to renounce their identities, advocates social death and therefore could meet some legal definitions of genocide.

In other words, if people stop identifying as trans, there will be no trans people left and hence trans people will have been (metaphorically) exterminated. (Note the popular slogan "death before detransition".) Again – absolutely nothing to do with "actual killings of trans people". If everyone stopped identifying as trans tomorrow, there would be no trans people left, without anyone actually having been killed. Nobody identifies as a mod or a rocker anymore, and yet it would be absurd to claim that mods or rockers have been "genocided".

Leah Owen highlights how far-right groups in the U.S. have been incorporating anti-transgender rhetoric and ideas, and the attempts at the time of writing that sought to eradicate transgender people through "broader cultural/legal/social action" rather than direct extermination.

There you go. When they talk about "transgender genocide", they are not talking about trans people being murdered.

I could go on and fisk the rest of the article in detail, but I think I've made my point. Only a small portion of the Wikipedia article about "transgender genocide" concerns itself with trans people actually being murdered.* The rest of it is just complaining about trans people being made to use the public facilities concordant with their sex, not being permitted to compete in opposite-sex sporting events, certain trans people no longer identifying as trans, medical bodies hitting pause on gender-affirming care for minors and so on. When you hear "transgender genocide", instead of thinking "trans people being murdered in their hundreds" you should hear "trans people being inconvenienced or failing to get exactly what they want, in any way".

Between this and Gaza, I'm starting to think the word "genocide" will need to be retired pretty soon.


*The article is 15,451 words long. "Murder" appears 15 times, "kill" 13 times, "violence" 38 times, "death" 9 times and so on.

I personally find 100x easily believable when comparing one particularly vulnerable subset of one population to the entirety of another (both being the <18 subset, of course)

This is a valid point. For the sake of argument, let's say that for each year in Ireland, 82.5% of the victims of defilement were girls under the age of 18. That would imply that the per capita rates for Irish girls <18 was 18/100k in 2005, 48/100k in 2008 and 51/100k in 2009, for an average of 39/100k across the entire period. That would shorten the odds substantially, implying that a white working-class teenaged girl in the UK is 35 times more likely to be sexually exploited by a Pakistani grooming gang than an Irish girl under the age of 18 is to be defiled by anyone.

But I have to admit: I still have a hard time believing that the UK's rate of sex crimes is >=30 times higher than Ireland's. If you told me it was double, I'd have no trouble believing that. 5 times? No question. 10 times? Well within the realm of possibility. But 30 times or more? That strains credibility.

And bear in mind: 1,383/100k isn't the rate at which white working-class teenaged girls get sexually exploited by anyone, but by Pakistani grooming gangs specifically. If we assume that most defilements in Ireland in the period were committed by co-ethnics (e.g. (extended) family members, teachers, Catholic priests etc.), then if the intra-ethnic rate of sexual exploitation of children is broadly similar across Ireland and the UK, white working-class teenaged girls in Briton would have had to contend with this risk in addition to their risk of sexual exploitation by Pakistani grooming gangs. So if the 250k figure is correct, that implies that the difference between the two countries is significantly higher than 35x.

Yes, I imagine this is what happened. For the sake of clarity, I'm not denying that grooming gangs were a big problem and that they were almost exclusively Pakistani men almost exclusively targeting white girls. I can believe that the rate at which these gangs targeted girls was comparable to the equivalent rate in Pakistan, or even higher (I've heard a theory that Pakistani men don't even see raping an infidel as a crime compared to raping one of their co-religionists, especially if the infidel girl is a "whore" i.e. doesn't wear a hijab). But I have to admit, I have a hard time believing that, in every year between 2000-18, 1 out of every 71 white working-class girls was sexually exploited by a Pakistani grooming gang. That figure strikes me as impossibly high.

My mum argued that pronouns can be helpful, not for the purposes of trans inclusivity, but because sometimes she gets emails from people from foreign countries and isn't sure if their forename is a boy's or girl's name.

I pointed out that we used to have a perfectly effective means of solving this problem: Mr./Mrs./Ms. This seems like a great example of jugaad ethics.