Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

However, unisex restrooms provide neither "hypothetically assumed to be safer" (which women's restrooms aren't really, but are perceived to be)

I have to disagree. Designated women's restrooms are safer for women. Quite a few sexual assaults were prevented / stopped by observant passers-by, who were like 'hey, why is there a man going into the ladies room?' Which is why am all for unisex single stall toilets, but against only unisex toilet rooms.

[Maximum Spin]

However, unisex restrooms provide neither "hypothetically assumed to be safer" (which women's restrooms aren't really, but are perceived to be)

I have to disagree. Designated women's restrooms are safer for women. Quite a few sexual assaults were prevented / stopped by observant passers-by, who were like 'hey, why is there a man going into the ladies room?' Which is why am all for unisex single stall toilets, but against only unisex toilet rooms.

Reasonable, but not what I meant in context. Sorry if unclear.

[anewaname]

Every time I have seen a "viral" Karen video, I have been reminded of those small dogs that try to prove their value to their pack leader by barking at things.

The Karen feels they are a member of a group, they feel they are a weaker member of that group who is protected by that group, and they attempt to contribute to their group by displaying their group's strength. It is all part of the human herd animal thing, where you receive feel-good drugs from "feeling like part of a group" and from "helping the group".

---------------------------------------

public bathrooms.... Any public bathroom where a woman can be sexually assaulted is also a public bathroom where anyone else can be assaulted for non-sexual purposes. Applying gender limitations on bathrooms is not a solution to the problem of people who take from others.

[wierd]

The issue is more nuanced and complicated than that.

Fear is an emotion, and often times a very irrational one at that.


Women can have legitimate reasons to be fearful, and they can have completely illegitimate ones also.  Both are fears, and both carry the weight of "DOOOOOM!" with them.


EG, a woman can FEEL like that transexual in the stall next door is a filthy pervert that dresses like a woman, so that he can rape her without anyone noticing, and that the people fighting to allow that 'pervert' to be allowed in that stall is a direct, existential threat to them.

It is nonsense, of course.  The transwoman in the stall next door just wants to take a leak, and does not want to use the men's room, because she is a woman.

It being complete and total nonsense has no bearing on the "FEAR! DOOOOOM!" response this woman feels at the notion of the transwoman using the stall.


Likewise, I have been the brunt of quite a few radical fear-mongering confabulations over the years.  When people cannot properly fit you into a neat and tidy little mold, their mind goes into overdrive, trying to FIND a way to fit you into one of their already existing molds.  As such, I have been feared for being a pedo, and a number of other unsavory things--  Nonsense of course.  If it is sex, no thank you, I am not interested. (no, your inability to comprehend how somebody could not want sex AT ALL, is not my problem. Please stop hallucinating scenarios where I am hiding some dirty secret. Thanks.)

Part of the "Safety!" of a woman's room, is that "Women!!" use it. (and ONLY "women!!" use it.)

That safety is violated for some women, when the definition of woman is expanded to accommodate transwomen. They respond quite aggressively to the loss of that "safety."


Again, this fear is irrational.  The fear does not give a shit, and these people's minds will go in circles, inventing made up bullshit to justify that fear, and make it seem rational, when it is not. 

To come back full circle here:

This "Brain going in overdrive, trying to justify the fear" phenomenon, makes these people glom on to every possible branch they can find, to cement together some phantasm they can attribute this fear to.  This is why acting like a Karen, and generally being "highly dismissive", and even outright offensive, even if it is just a small portion of the demographic, does so much harm.  Just a few, disparate instances will get spread around like butter on toast, and then shared among other "Concerned women!!", who will of course, all eagerly agree--- and it snowballs.


The women most likely to be so "AFRAID!! DOOM!!" about a transwoman in the stall next to them, are also the ones most likely to have been fed a strong diet of sexual segregation, and fed a diet of MEN ARE TEH EVULZ!!!.  since a transwoman "USED TO BE A MAN!", they invariably see that transwoman not as another woman, but as a man in woman's clothing-- and WHY would they want to dress like a woman? Well- Because MEN ARE TEH EVULS-- IT MUST BE TO RAPE!

Again, for society to move past this shit, the society has to make incremental, and meaningful steps, so that women that replace these people through attrition, do not harbor such foolish notions, and so, ultimately, have no qualms about the transwoman in the stall next to them.

No amount of forcing the issue with the legal system will erase these involuntary and irrational fears from these people. In fact, it will only inflame those fears, since now "NOBODY CAN BE TRUSTED TO HELP!". 


This comes again to my position.  Are the boomers still alive?  Are they still a significant factor in the political trajectory of the nation?

Forcing the issue because of impatience for them to die (again, my own sexuality cannot even HOPE to be recognized properly until other sexualities are--- I have skin in this game, and I want you to be recognized properly in the shortest possible timetable), only sensitizes the upcoming generation, and postpones the cultural acceptance.

Nothing can realistically be done about the "OH NOEZ! A MAN IN WOMEN'S CLOTHES--- IN THE STALL NEXT TO MINE!!" irrational fear.  Not on a widespread scale anyway.  The best that you can do, is foster conditions where this is not going to be a source of pathological thought for the next generation, and wait for the already afflicted to be replaced via generational attrition.

Again, I am well aware that the rate of such progress means I will NEVER be accepted by mainstream civilization during my lifetime.

Simply because you kids are so close that you can taste it, does not give you the moral go-ahead to try and force it to happen sooner for you.  Understanding that irrational fear exists, why it exists, and why you should not poke it with sticks, is very important.

Understanding how such irrational fears form, and what sustains them, and then working the slow and long game to remove those sources, is how we will win this.

That DOES mean pushing.  It means that people like me need to fight to work in child care, for instance.  It means that "proof through demonstration" must be getting performed.  However, it also means not being callous, dismissive, or worst of all, outright offensive against people who's only real crime is that they were programmed to be afraid, needs to be avoided at all fucking costs.

again, the message is NOT "Dont push".

It is "Dont be a fucking Karen."

Just like I have to wait for society to be at a state where it is even plausible for it to accept the very notion of a man existing has zero sex drive, and has no desire to be "manly" (and no, is not actually secretly gay, or a pedo, or into animals, or whatever)-- Transpeople in the contemporary have to accept that society is only on the VERGE of acceptance, and not "WE CAN HAVE ACCEPTANCE IN OUR LIFETIMES!".

To win that acceptance, we need a good, solid generation of people that have no irrational phobias, and have grown up in circumstances where toxic masculinity and femininity have been eschewed, and thus "EVIL MAN IN WOMAN'S CLOTHES!!" is not even a thought that crops up.

We are not there yet.

We COULD be there, once the boomers die.

**ASSUMING** you do not screw the damn pooch, by trying to force it.

So, again-- Dont screw the pooch-- Dont be Karen.  Further, shut down people playing the part of the Karen.  Be good listeners-- Listen to what these fearful women are saying. Try to understand why they feel the ways they do.  Reach out to them, and help them as best you can.

Ignoring them, and mocking them does only harm.

Dont be Karen.

[Vector]

I meant to say this earlier, but I actually can't be Karen in this context, because that would require abusing structural privilege. That word as coined by Black people doesn't actually mean "being annoying, loud, and holier than thou."

Next: I don't know how you're imagining these conversations going down. My experience is usually things like teachers going out of their way to complain to me privately how much they hate their trans students. I mean, yeah, great, don't be Karen, but I don't feel any need to listen and affirm their emotions, especially when people have learned to say: "Oh no, I don't hate trans people. I have no problem with anyone. But I hate this one specific trans child because they cried when I called them a her."

I have done what you're saying -- listen -- and mostly what I hear is a bunch of "I just don't think that they should have the same status in society" or "we should be warned when there is one around" or "you know, I've never met a queer person that I like, and I can't believe that you would either." And part of the problem with listening nonjudgmentally is that one, I'm not a therapist and that's actually not the relationship I want with these people, two, why did I bother becoming such a stellar enby if I don't tell people "actually, I'm the thing you hate," (which they will take as aggression) and three, they assume that I agree with them by default.

I just get so frustrated. I'm tired of being hurt. Many of these people act like you're "being Karen" if you exist in public (you're rubbing it in people's faces) (this is a family restaurant). I've heard this argument before -- you've got to be superhuman in order to get your rights, and you shouldn't expect to have them in your lifetime, you should in fact not take opportunities you see to get them in your lifetime -- and all I can think of is, "that 41% suicide attempt statistic, largely incurred when people are children -- what the fuck are we supposed to tell them? Slow progress, slow progress?"

It's not just about us.


Here's the other thing: yes, there's a backlash to things like legal abortion and the end to formal Jim Crow laws and etc. But those years of abortion being legal mattered a lot to the people who were able to get abortions. And then, in some places, things are going back to the way that they used to be. But that time still mattered.


PS: Let's bring it back to the Suffragettes. Their Karen behavior was being gender non-conforming and doing things that men did.

I will listen with more open ears to this line of argument when we start calling the January 6th insurrectionists and Carlson Tucker types Karens. They will demand their rights whether we do or not.

[wierd]

I happen to be a nonbinary male, among a LOOOOOOOT of cis-normative females, since I work in nursing.

It is not how I *IMAGINE* the conversations go down.

It is how I have *HEARD* them go down.
(Specifically, in their minds, they consider me to be "Gay", and so "Safe to talk around"-- and likewise, they dont have any trans-people around, so they let that shit all hang out. When I say this is how I have heard it go down, I mean this is how I have heard it go down, MANY MANY MANY TIMES.)

The "I think they need to not use my restroom!!" nonsense, stems from the underlying false presumption of "THAT IS A MAN IN WOMAN'S CLOTHES!". They hold that notion for a number of reasons.

Mostly, it is because they are an artifact of a generation where toxic masculinity and hyper femininity were the norms.  The absurdist view that "Women like to go shoe shopping" and all that shit, rather than the more realistic "Women go shopping, but more often than not, are not there to have fun, but rather to get the shit they need and get out, just like everyone else." etc.

Likewise, with the world view that "Men only care about getting their dicks wet", et al.

Those toxic preconditions, create the foundation for the "Transgender != "Actual" Gender!!" histrionics.  Again, it is because they believe that the only real and legitimate reason a man would wear women's clothes, (as they put it), is either because he is gay-- (and thus still a man)-- Or because he is a pervert freakazoid that thinks he can sneak into a woman's bathroom and not be noticed. (again, still a man.)

At no point in their mental process, does "The transwoman is a woman, and has always been a woman in every way that actually matters" find its way in.  Again, because in the backdrop of their mind, "Has a penis" == "Wants to put it in my hole." (Unless he is Gay.)

[This complete, stark, black-white binary worldview about gender is at fault for not only my being painted with the gay brush all the goddamn time--- I am NOT gay!--- But also is responsible for Trans people being painted with the "SEXUAL PREDATOR!!!" brush.  Trans people are NOT sexual predators! ]

For clarity, it is NOT that they think "I just don't think that they should have the same status in society", as you put it.  It is because they view trans people as "chester the child molester", or "Creepy rapeface bastard."  EG, people they think should be locked up, not out on the prowl, where "They can hurt people."   This is because in their heads, that kind of thing is the only thing that makes sense to them. You will not get them to change, and those people have **REAL** political power. 

See also, what JUST WENT DOWN in Tennessee.  Those people acted on their irrational fears, (because it is what they felt they HAD to do to protect themselves from the scary, evil trans people, who are obviously dirty rapists who want to get in women's bathrooms!), and now the battle there is significantly harder.

Again, the MAJORITY of the people who hold these kinds of views, are in the Boomer and Gen X demographics-- MOSTLY in the boomer demographic.  They are artifacts of when that really was the case. (or at least, was the case sufficiently in the workplace to be a real concern) See also, all the bullshit that used to happen in work places with slapped asses, sexual harrassment, etc.  You cannot really blame them for having these fears. They come from a life experience where that shit happened, and that lifetime of negative experience is not going to be shut down by anything but an act of god, or their deaths.  When I am imploring you to try an "understand them", ^THIS is what I mean by that.  Understand that they are products of an era that reveled in slapping asses, harassing women into having sex, and otherwise subjugated women in very real, and very negative ways.  As such, as products of that environment, they have certain views about their safety and protection, that do not make sense anymore, but that they really and truly cannot just get over.

This is again, why I keep asking these questions:

Are the boomers still alive?

Do they still factor majorly in the political trajectory of the nation?


Those questions are central here, because you are not going to make somebody that has irrational fears stop having them, and certainly not by railroading shit over the top of them. 

Since those two things have NOT YET COME TO CHANGE--- The time for "THE BIG PUSH!!!!!" has not yet come.

Pushing that way too soon, produces a new generation that considers trans and gay people to be offensively demanding, pushy, and unrealistic.  Why? Because their mommies and daddies railed about them, and there was a sufficiently loud and obnoxious media blitz about such, because their mommies and daddies rail about it. (Because the media is out for maximum shock factor, because that is what sells.)


Once that mental image is made, it is VERY hard to get it UNMADE.

Since the boomers are not dead yet, and they react hyperbombastically to trans people using the fucking bathroom they want to use, the media eats that shit up, and inflames that shit like gasoline on a forest fire.  Fighting against that media coverage (through the courts), is only going to create the secondary toxic world view in the replacement generation, and you are going to POSTPONE the changeover.  NOT HASTEN IT.

Sure, you might win being able to use the bathroom you want, but it is going to smoulder and always be a tense experience, because the other women in that bathroom, do not want you in there. Because you screwed the pooch, and forced it through too soon.


As for suffragettes-- NO-- They acted in the way they VIEWED men as acting.  NOTE-- They acted as TOXIC AS POSSIBLE. (because that is how they viewed men.)

Again, "Man == Toxic man"

It was not true then, it is not true now.  Men rebuffed such caricatures as nonsense, and the anti-suffragistst ate that shit up, and played on those feelings of it being nonsense, to paint suffrage as nonsense.  It did not actually help the cause.  What DID help the cause, were all the many multitudes more women, who simply demonstrated through example, that they were not at all stupid, silly, or nonsensical, and that they could be trusted with the vote.

It is true that at that time, the "culturally idealized" man was a toxic man. But the reality is that just like most women are not barbie(tm) (an idealized toxic woman), most men then were not Cassinova(tm), nor were they "Mr Macho, who makes all the women swoon, and gets endless poontang, while being publicly intoxicated, smoking, and cursing loudly without consequences."


The ideal conception of men has THANKFUCKINGGOD moved away from that shit.

However, the generational handoff has not completed; The boomers refuse to die.

That's why you still see toxic male-dominated ads for OldSpice, DosEquis beer, and Axe body spray-- and also why you get bullshit beauty ads with unhealthy and unrealistic expectations of beauty in them. People who still adhere to those outmoded and toxic as fucking dzerzhinsk worldviews STILL SELL PRODUCT-- BECAUSE THERE IS STILL A SIGNIFICANT DEMOGRAPHIC.

[MrRoboto75]

The ideal conception of men has THANKFUCKINGGOD moved away from that shit.

Hardly.

The modern man is a barely domesticated ape out to harass and rape women and is only one good opportunity from outright pedophilia.  Too poor to be breadwinners and thus serve barely any purpose in a modern relationship.  Any and all failings in modern dating is always men's fault for being lazy, sexist, and unappealing, and any rejection of dating culture from them must be branded as inceldom.

[wierd]

The ideal conception of men has THANKFUCKINGGOD moved away from that shit.

Hardly.

The modern man is a barely domesticated ape out to harass and rape women and is only one good opportunity from outright pedophilia.  Too poor to be breadwinners and thus serve barely any purpose in a modern relationship.  Any and all failings in modern dating is always men's fault for being lazy, sexist, and unappealing, and any rejection of dating culture from them must be branded as inceldom.

What a fantastic critique of toxic sexuality. Thank you.

Covers both toxic male and toxic female, all in one go.

[None]

Look, I have not studied women's suffrage particularly well outside of what I learned in high school (I'll need to go find a book on this), but just referencing Wikipedia as a top-level source on anti-suffragism here, it seems responses were

1) per Britain, concerned it would eliminate the 'ideal' of the woman, that they'd be women imitating men (this sounds topical). There's a clear line cut for what the genders are expected to be, and among them for women was 'innocent,' which any sort of militant feminism would have jeopardized.  Now, it's perhaps for the best that this was jeopardized anyways, since they had such concrete ideas of what an 'ideal' woman would be. Also, it jeopardized Britain's imperialist regime, since 'women are weak.'

2) per Ireland, cultural and religious restrictions and the idea that women were domestic- also ties in that it was assumed they'd vote as their husbands did. Also, that the suffrage movement would take attention away from the nationalist push for Irish Home Rule. Northern Ireland went to war for its independence anyways, so I'm asserting that one progressive movement (suffrage) did not sufficiently replace the other political movement.

3) Stateside, anti-suffrage took off with after two hundred women opposed legislation in Massachusetts. Two hundred. Small headcount for political activism. Women had such assumed roles that anti-suffrage propaganda again largely focused on women being selfish for wanting to do something outside of their assumed home sphere and that it would jeopardize house/home/children/marriage/love. Suffrage was seen as mannish (topical) and self-absorbed. Like it's selfish to want equal representation and to challenge societal norms. Propaganda was, of course, largely farcical and overtly political, caricaturizing women as turning their backs on family responsibility. Later, the anti-radical rhetoric (the stuff you're touting about Karens) came about, stating that the ideas of suffrage were too radical and that the suffragists were treasonist, mormonist, bolshevik, socialist. Largely conspiratorial, baseless stuff, or demonizing activism as radicalism. It's a little early for the Red Scare, as memory serves, but the same rhetoric's been in use again and again since then. "Accusations of being associated with unpopular radical movements was named after the second president of NAOWS, Alice Wadsworth, and called "Wadsworthy" attacks.[84] In addition to associating suffrage with radicalism, the antis also felt that they were oppressed and had lost much perceived political power by 1917.[84]"

So a hundred years ago, 'Karens' were Wadsworths.

Point being- the political scene at the time held such concrete ideas for women that suffrage was seen as a challenge to the very idealized box they'd put women in. Voting was seen as the antithesis to this despite being largely unconnected to the home and hearth. Similarly, we collectively still have very concrete ideas about gender, down to legislating warnings on bathrooms in fear of, I dunno, a right to privacy or affirmation for the transgender jeopardizing what it means to be an ideal man or woman. Opposition at any point in the movement demonizes activism and the challenge to the status quo. Anything outside the small sphere they want to lock people in is seen as radical.

More than just the 'older generation' having strong views, it's a fear of change and a fear that those with power would lose it (Britain, Christians, affluent men, from historical examples). The rhetoric they used to protest this change is largely the culmination of this idea of the 'Karen.' Simply waiting for that idea to die out is like waiting for the Imperialists to die out, or the pope, or Jeff Bezos. There'll always be another of each to replace them, and they'll work within the power allotted to them to keep that power allotted to them. They make this caricature of the 'Karen' because it clearly works to put this anti-progressive worm in the minds of those who don't have the time or will to understand why that's baloney. It does not take death to make change, else the path to suffrage would be a lot bloodier.

Fundamentally, we cannot negotiate for progress around the idea of being or not being Karen because Karen is a farcical caricature created as a point of propaganda to oppose progressive ideology. There's no negotiation on what is or is not Karen, because Karen is opposition and opponents will be debased with the label and thereafter dismissed from consideration.

I've heard 'Karen' slung around a lot by my millennial peers, so unfortunately this particular worm isn't likely to die of old age, and as it's now acting as a stumbling block to talk about progressive development, I must oppose its use too.

This is all in address to your prior post, because I'm afraid you'll reach back to the other day's discussion about how I'm completely ignoring your argument for asking for legal compliance with those 180 corporations in TN. I've got other feelings about how that may leave transgender people in smaller communities to suffer at the expense of time because their support network is likely to be small anyways and inherently exclusionist legislature is not going to spurn some small coffee shop or town grocer to put up bathroom signs. Thoughts for another post if that comes up again.

[wierd]

More or less, I agree--  This IS mostly about the preconceptions of what an "Ideal Man" or "Ideal woman" are.

Again, this is EXACTLY why my own gender identity (genderqueer + asex), cannot get even a glimmer of hope, until people get over this shit enough for transpeople (who still identify as straight up male or female) to be recognized, and why VERY MUCH want this to be done correctly, properly, and not rushed through in such a way that it causes persistent, and lingering detractions.

However, once again, (and I mean this in the nicest. possible. Way.)

I am not,

Have not.

Never have.

Never will.

Advocate for "Doing nothing but waiting."

Can we PLEASE dispense with that?

[None]

Fine, can we dispense with "not being fucking Karen" as being the engine for positive change, then?

[wierd]

If the term is what is offensive, substitute it for whatever term is most appropriate in your lexicon, and move on.

Otherwise, no-- The issue I am drawing attention to, is central to the conception of current generations, who will persist MUCH longer than the currently long-overdue boomer expiration date, and will only serve to further postpone other group's time in the sun.

Again, I am not advocating for "Doing nothing."  Never have. Never will.

I am advocating for advocacy that is aware of the realities that these people still exist, and still hold significant power, and that recognizes that the media craves the money of those people and thier political power, and these things simply cannot be ignored.


That means, no, not in your lifetime, until theirs ends, naturally.

[Vector]

Wierd, we know that these people still exist. The whole kerfluffle with JK Rowling, where she justified using her massive platform to write a novel about a character dressing in women's clothes in order to murder women, was supposedly based on bathroom fears.

However, part of this is of course based generally on the experience of white women, who are raised to see themselves as innocents constantly in danger of deflowering, and then treated half like a captive prey population for a certain segment of the heterosexual white male population, and half take on the political power that their "purity and weakness" gives them to sometimes do good things and sometimes ruin other people's lives.

And sometimes, I think that a key aspect of this that you're missing, is that sometimes, just sometimes, part of that involves crying to get their way when people challenge that power, and claiming that the other person is being "aggressive." But it has nothing to do with actual aggression. It has to do with a seasoned defense to power being threatened, and that power is threatened any time that white, cisgender, heterosexual femininity loses its market value. Such as suggesting that anyone can become a woman, if they want to be, and that similarly, women could stop taking this incredibly shitty deal. If they wanted to.

(I don't mean "become lesbians," I mean "start valuing themselves as whole human beings and pursue happiness over 'purity,' and 'being normal and wholesome,' whatever that means.")

Yeah, rape and sexual aggression are threatening. I'm familiar with those. But part of the twist here when talking specifically about women's concerns is that trans-ness in general threatens the meager amount of power that cisgender women have scraped out for themselves as part of the present model of heterosexuality. It doesn't matter what you look like or even if you're a decent person: at least you aren't trans. At least you aren't a monster.

And: the ones who ask for power had better watch out, because they're acting like men; like trans people.


I know that where we disagree is in terms of means and methods, but: yeah, if confronted with a bunch of nice cis older women who were somewhat open-minded but had legitimate concerns about being assaulted when using the toilet, yes, I wouldn't approach that militantly. I've been debating adding a note that in India one of the key pushes is to get gendered toilets because one of the places where women most commonly tend to be attacked is while using the bathroom.

I also feel like an underlying assumption in the conversation here has been that I'm not targeted for sexual or misogynistic harassment from shitty dudes. This is very untrue.


Women sometimes tell me, "you wouldn't experience misogyny if you didn't act like a silly girl." I don't actually think that characterizing this as a simple matter of changing hearts and minds by being nontoxic and doing things properly is correct. You're saying something like "no hammers, scalpels only." But sometimes the job calls for a hammer.

[None]

Wierd, ou're still evading my point- any criticism will still be too much criticism, any advocacy will be too much advocacy. There's no amount of polite advocacy that's just enough to make a positive change beyond my lifetime without offending someone. Karen, Wadsworth, whatever.

'Too much' was, within our lifetimes, 'being gay.' It's still not tolerated in regressive counties or in judiciary systems, much like 'being black' is. Gay marriage is, within our lifetimes, legally protected despite the boomers. Heck, historically, 'being gay' wasn't even so much intolerable until they were made adversaries of by people clamoring for power- conservatives, the church, Russia (Cracks in the Iron Closet is a great read about the LGBTQ community over there), etc. I don't believe that 'boomers being old and having money' is why those power grabs succeeded, but we have to contend with them much the same as we have to contend with regressive laws against trans rights in TN.

It is not enough to simply politely 'not be gay' until it's okay to be who you are when the boomers die out for fear of setting antagonising ideas in our peers' heads when someone else equally power-hungry bubbles up to take their spot.

[wierd]

Vector:  I have no detractions from that. I agree, and label such behavior as "Toxic femininity".  It is the "barbie doll" female model.  Barbie has no personality. She exists only to be pretty, to stand for a symbol of intrinsic virtue, to go shopping, and to date Ken.

Barbie's identity revolves around those things. Naturally, Barbie cannot handle it when Ken comes out as being a woman. (For a very large number of reasons.)

I am of the opinion that toxic femininity needs to die a painful and horrible death, just like toxic masculinity does.  I do not think we disagree.

I am also well aware of your history with sexual abuse. I was simply being polite to not drag that up. It was not my intention to act like I was completely unaware of it.
On the flipside, the way you are approaching this suggests you are unaware that asexual males are treated VERY VERY badly by Barbie model toxic females.  Asexual male is not interested in dating barbie, no matter how hot she is. He is not interested in showering her with gifts to get into her panties. He is interested in somebody with a personality.  Asexual male is so antithetical to barbie, that she cannot even contemplate his real existence, and instead, mislabels him as "Gay."




None:  I take issue with this presumption; It follows the same rule of "X will always happen, so Y is unavoidable."

There are historical counterpoints to such things.

"The Nords will always worship Odin"  Et al.

It implies, through implicit assumption, that the behavior is somehow intrinsically linked to humanity itself.  If you take that assumption on its face, the advocacy is meaningless to begin with. 

Rather, listen to what I am actually saying--- The people that have such views, have those views because of certain reasons.  When those reasons no longer exist, or no longer apply, they cannot easily recruit young people to continue those beliefs.  Much like worship of the Aesir is not a mainstream thing in the north of europe anymore, such notions wont be mainstream in any measurable capacity, as long as young people have no reason to adopt them.

It is this "I do not want young people to adopt them", that is the central thrust of my argument.