Categories
Uncategorized

And now the sequel: Incels, Daily Stormer find common ground on sexbots and artificial wombs

The ideal Aryan woman?

By David Futrelle

Seems I wasn’t the only person to take note of the Daily Stormer’s growing excitement over sexbots and artificial wombs, which the Stormers think will render real human women obsolete and help to solve “our white reproduction problem.”

Over on Incels.co, one prolific commenter called Sparrow’s Song posted a link to the Stormer article about sexbots I wrote about yesterday, declaring that “the Daily Stormer is on our side.”

“It seems like this time around, the Nazis are trying to save the untermensch instead of dispose of them like femasites [women] want,” he wrote.

This is ideal, I cannot love a foid and a foid cannot love me, a waifubot is more human and worthy than a fembeast unclean animal.

Somehow I suspect that those “waifubots” would get pretty unclean pretty quickly, but never mind.

Add ectogenesis to fun, or as I like to call them, Uberwombs, and not only will every man have a reason to live and finally have their reproductive human rights recognized, but men would also never have to breed with genetically subhuman landwhales who produce deformed incel sons who rope.

English translation: Add artificial wombs to the mix and men will be able to pass their genes onto the next generation without having to have procreative sex with “genetically subhuman” fat women who would give birth to ugly male children destined to become incels and kill themselves.

Foids have nothing to complain about, they can turn their chad harems into physical dwelling places and have their animalistic, heartless, barbaric, and hateful blood orgies of death and bullying among themselves and their chads.

How do you change a “harem” of Chads into a building? What is this dude even talking about?

Ugly and fat foids can get chadbots and artificial creampie procedures, they have nothing to complain about it. This technology isn’t misogynistic, this technology is MERCIFUL GRACE.

Now, there are certainly many commenters on Incels.co who are sympathetic to white nationalism and the rabid antisemitism that comes along with it, but most of those in the comments took issue with Sparrow’s Song’s new enthusiasm for the Daily Stormer. For some, the Nazis are simply normie “cucks” who worship white women (though this is clearly not the case with the highly misogynistic Daily Stormer crew). Other incels, many of them not themselves white, are less than thrilled by Nazi racism.

But one commenter called turbocuckcel_7000, another prolific poster who, like Sparrow’s Song, has more than 12,000 comments to his name, sees some sort of alliance with the Stormer crew as both inevitable and good. While he dismisses the “older patriotic types” in the far-right milieu who are “very proud of their achievements in finding a wife and … lionize their daughters,” he’s enthusiastic about the

men on the younger side like those staffing the Dailystormer who are actually in touch with the new generation and the magnitude of the incel problem.

they see how having females in power everywhere simultaneously fucks up everything for rightwing purposes while accelerating the incel problem.

they also don’t lionize women like boomers, thinking of their wife as some kind of super-discerning judge of male worth, and their daughter as some kind of demi-god that’s better than most men.

they just see women as something to be controlled, much like the founders of all functioning civilizations see them.

this isn’t even an alliance by necessity, it just couldn’t even go any other way. both win when the other wins.

Misogynists of a feather flock together, and it seems likely that the incels’ and the Stormers’ shared hatred of women will bring them closer together over time, regardless of whether their weird pipe dreams about sexbots and artificial wombs ever come true.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

132 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Rabid Rabbit

I’m told is TERFing it up with the best of them these days.

Yup, Tatsuya Ishida is a TERF to an extreme degree. I never enjoyed Sinfest much before, as I found the whole “fembot” thing rather sexist and SWERFy, but it seems like many a sexist man he realized that he could rebrand as a TERF and be misogynistic while claiming to be a feminist.

I mean, I don’t deny the existence of biological sex, I just don’t think it has any importance.

The problem with what Suzanne Moore said is that it’s a dogwhistle. Transphobes talk about “biological sex” the way racists talk about race. Biological sex exists, yes, and trans* people acknowledge that. However, it’s not binary and it’s not immutable and is way more complicated than genitals or chromosomes. Here is an essay with more information. When transphobes talk about biological sex, they mean someone’s value and treatment should be contingent on what genitals they were born with, which is not the entirety of sex or gender (and is also a very antifeminist idea). It’s also a practice with a history linked to colonialism, as Europeans suppressed indigenous transgender and non-binary identities such as Two-Spirit or Hijra on this basis.

showed a lot more grace to JKR than she has to them, and at the same time still pointed out that she was wrong.

From what I saw, most of the trans* people I follow on Twitter went out of their way to condemn the sexual assault that JK survived, and also to point out that JK’s abuser was a cis man, not a trans* woman, and that it is transphobic nonsense to try to blame trans* women for what happened, especially seeing as trans* women are at extremely high risk of sexual assault. It’s also demeaning to survivors of sexual assault, cis and trans*, to reduce it to a justification of transphobia.

O/T: incels are now convinced masks are a conspiracy against them. One would think that if they are so ugly, they’d like masks that hide it.
And gaming YouTube is upset that Brie Larson started a YouTube Channel.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
1 year ago

Sorry for the O/T, but I just had to share this. It’s a commission for UNICEF; “The Invisibility of Poverty“. It’s just drawn on the steps would you believe?

comment image

Dormousing_it
Dormousing_it
1 year ago

Years ago, I read a Chris Hedges book, “Empire of Illusion”. It was NOT a cheery book. Hedges devotes a chapter to commercial pornography. He describes a doctor who owns numerous life-sized sex dolls. He claimed to use the rhythm method with the dolls, because clean-up was easier that way. He also said something like, “In my experience, women who resemble these dolls aren’t in a good place mentally.”

I’m not condemning him…each to his or her own.

Dormousing_it
Dormousing_it
1 year ago

Wait, that’s not what I meant to say, at all. I meant to say “coitus interruptius”.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
1 year ago

Is it my imagination, or is Twitter nowadays even slower and balkier than Facebook? I went to the Brie meltdown twitter link someone posted here recently and it took like five minutes to get to where the text of any tweet was visible and not just Twitter logos and spinning “loading” wheels, and then a couple more minutes before various flat-colored rectangles turned into images. During the latter period the browser indicated, apparently incorrectly, that it was done loading. The Twitter tab was focused the whole time.

This is on a 3 megabit down-pipe with little contention at the time. Not stellar, but a text-and-still-images web page should NOT take seven full minutes to load with that.

It seems many major websites now assume that everyone (or maybe just everyone-that-matters) has a fat 40+ megabit cable/fiber pipe and don’t make any efforts to optimize for bandwidth.

Even then, a page that takes 7 minutes = 420 seconds to download via my shitty 3 megabit drinking-straw would still take well over half a minute on that 40 megabit cable firehose they’re assuming incorrectly that everyone now has.

Remember when the recommended practice was to have your site load in 10 seconds or less?

*sigh*

Yutolia the Laissez-Fairy Pronoun Boner
Yutolia the Laissez-Fairy Pronoun Boner
1 year ago

OT: I know I’ve been here for a long time and it’s possible this has been explained to me before, but how do you post images?

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Yutolia
Copy and paste the image url (often can be found by right-clicking and choosing “copy image location”) and make sure it ends with an image extension like .jpg, .gif, or .png.

If it’s an image on your hard drive, you’ll need to upload it somewhere like imgur.com to post it.

Threp (formerly Shadowplay)

@Yutolia

Supposedly, you post a link ending in .jpg (or similar graphic file type) on it’s own line.

I can get it to work maybe one time in 10 though, so I’m obviously missing something – a spell or an incantation maybe. 😛

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 year ago

@Alan Robertshaw:

Stunning. Thanks for sharing.

@Naglfar:

Thanks for the link!

Yutolia the Laissez-Fairy Pronoun Boner
Yutolia the Laissez-Fairy Pronoun Boner
1 year ago

@Naglfar, Threp: thank you!!

Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
1 year ago

OT: It’s Malia Obama’s birthday today. Here’s a song to mark the occasion.

Lainy
Lainy
1 year ago

…. I don’t think anything raised by a doll would be a very healthy individual.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

There’s an incel on the previous page that everyone missed

Oh please. incels.co? That site is 90% trolls pretending to be incels. Alot of them are just “normies” (people who are not incels) trying to make incels look bad because they hate us.

Where’s a site for incels that isn’t misogynistic. Because I’ve sure never seen one.

Real incels are not violent. We are your neighbors and coworkers.

These things aren’t mutually exclusive. Abusers and bigots are always normal everyday people, not boogeymen in a dark alley.

And we are victims of social injustice.

Not getting a date isn’t a social injustice and framing it that way is actually misogynistic, even violent. Because if it’s an injustice that no one is dating and/or fucking you, how would justice be restored? By women dating and/or fucking you. And if no women want to do that? Well…violence must be used to achieve justice, right?

Despite the media’s attempt to portray us as terrorists and haters. You should think about WHO is feeding you this line, and WHY.

The World Health Organization is conspiring against incels? I’d have thought they’d be a little busy with the pandemic, but OK.

In all seriousness, who is conspiring to make everyone hate you and why? How are existing power structures served by keeping you sexless?

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@WWTH
Didn’t notice that, he must have just come through from spam.

Anyway:

Oh please. incels.co? That site is 90% trolls pretending to be incels. Alot of them are just “normies” (people who are not incels) trying to make incels look bad because they hate us.

[Citation needed]
I guarantee you incels don’t need outsider help to look bad, y’all do that just fine on your own.

Real incels are not violent. We are your neighbors and coworkers.

Ever heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

Oh, and you’re demonstrably wrong BTW, does the name Elliot Rodger ring a bell?

And we are victims of social injustice. Despite the media’s attempt to portray us as terrorists and haters.

Ah, the great social injustice of not having a sex slave.

You should think about WHO is feeding you this line, and WHY.

Pray tell, who is it? Teh Jews? Teh Feminists? I’m both, so I want to know if I’m supposedly doing that.

Lainy
Lainy
1 year ago

Oh yeah porn whinny incel is such a victim of social injustice because no one wants to touch their dicks. Get over yourself incel. Be glad you don’t have real problems. Now run along back to your sad little life you think you have

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

O/T: Fionne Orlander is a TERF token trans* woman to whom they can point and claim they’re not transphobic. However, she’s trying to fundraise to get facial feminization surgery and her “friends” are showing their true colors (Link tw transphobia). Once again, befriending bigots doesn’t pay, and they don’t actually care about the wellbeing of their tokens.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 year ago

Friendly Neighborhood Incel

I hope this incel comes back to explain how to solve the great social injustice of women not having sex with him without force or violence.

Lainy
Lainy
1 year ago

@policy

Probably involves raising girls to have no standards. Which we all know won’t work and won’t happen.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

I hope this incel comes back to explain how to solve the great social injustice of women not having sex with him without force or violence.

Oh, that’s easy! Prevent women from holding jobs and impose harsh penalties on anyone having sex with someone other than their spouse. Then women will be forced incentivized to marry incels and have sex with them, or else they will starve on the streets!

There, completely violence and force free, because everyone knows that violence only occurs when one person physically assaults another person, and is never ever systemic or intangible! /Sarcasm

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

O/T: JK Rowling continues her rapid output and spreading of bad takes by liking a tweet that manages to claim both that trans* people should try every possible way to not be trans*, and that using antidepressants is lazy. Ableism and transphobia, hand in hand, as usual.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

…and she’s now gone full Glinner and is trying to start a pile on of a much smaller account that criticized her. If you have a Twitter account I encourage reporting her tweets for inciting hatred and targeted harassment.

Some part of me wonders if she was just waiting for Graham to get banned so she could be Queen of the TERFs.

Lumipuna
Lumipuna
1 year ago

Cranks only ever get crankier over time.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

I’m a bit gobsmacked that Rowling went “I’ve ignored death and rape threats, but the implication that I think medication for mental health is for lazy people merely because I liked a tweet saying that the cause for medication of mental illness is laziness, that’s where I draw the line!”

So progressives calling out shitty behavior are worse than internet CHUDs sending out death threats. Cool.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 year ago

I’m reluctant to call Rowling a TERF because I’ve seen no evidence that she’s a radical feminist. Calling her one when she isn’t one makes it too easy for her to shrug off the label. She’s just a straight transphobe and should be called one.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Catalpa

So progressives calling out shitty behavior are worse than internet CHUDs sending out death threats. Cool.

This seems to be the general attitude of most reactionaries, both alt right and dirtbag left. Probably because criticism might prompt them to re-evaluate their behavior.

@PoM

I’m reluctant to call Rowling a TERF because I’ve seen no evidence that she’s a radical feminist. Calling her one when she isn’t one makes it too easy for her to shrug off the label.

I think at this point the term TERF is mostly used to indicate using pseudo feminist language or claiming to protect women as an excuse for transphobia, rather than actually being a radical feminist. By most definitions Graham Linehan was never a radical feminist and devoted much time to using misogynistic insults against cis women who disagreed with him, which isn’t very feminist, yet most would agree he is a TERF. Rowling claims to be a feminist, despite many antifeminist ideas in her books, and she does use arguments about protecting women and girls, so I think the label’s current usage fits.

And even if JK isn’t a TERF herself by your definition, she has surrounded herself with people who are unambiguously TERFs and regularly retweets and likes them, so that would also be an argument in favor of calling her a TERF.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 year ago

@Naglfar

When you all-caps TERF you’re using it as an acronym, and the meaning of the term doesn’t apply to every transphobe. Yes, a lot of people do apply it to every transphobe, but my point is that if I’m the target of a TERF label, and I know I’m not radical feminist, I can laugh at you and point out that I’m not a TERF and completely shrug it off. Using it for every transphobe not only dilutes the term, it also makes it simple for the targets to continue their transphobic ways while telling themselves, “I’m not a TERF so I don’t have to care what you call me.”

She’s a transphobe, so I don’t know why she needs a TERF label instead of just being called (more accurately) a transphobe. If you want to say that TERF does not have to be accurate, and you can use it for every transphobe regardless of whether it fits, then you’re playing into the TERF narrative that TERF is just a slur. It’s not a slur, it’s an accurate label, but only if you use it accurately.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@PoM
I am aware it is an acronym. I did not apply it to every transphobe, as I mentioned it is generally used to mean someone who uses pseudo feminist language to justify transphobia. Many archetypal people for whom the term is used; like Posie Parker, Graham Linehan, or Jonathan Ross; do not associate with radical feminism other than to justify transphobia. What you are suggesting would mean the vast majority of people that have been labeled as TERFs no longer fit the term. This is a term used because it’s useful to be able to classify bigots, for example there is a difference between MRAs and incels, or how neo Nazis are a subset of white supremacists. The term would be much less useful if it were more limited in scope. We could use a term they created like “gender critical” to describe the rest, but that’s using their lexicon and downplays their bigotry.

JK claims to be a feminist. She is transphobic. Therefore, she is a TERF. Whether she actually is or ever was a feminist is up for debate, but by her own self-identification she fits the term.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 year ago

JK claims to be a feminist. She is transphobic. Therefore, she is a TERF.

But she’s not (to the best of my reckoning) a radical feminist. She’s a liberal feminist from what I can see, to whatever extent she may be a feminist at all. So she might be called a TELF, accurately, but not a TERF.

In fact, TELF is a great label for a whole lot of transphobes, so maybe I’ll start using that a lot.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@PoM
I feel like saying she’s a liberal feminist still does ignore a lot of antifeminist stuff in her work, but it is more accurate than calling her radical. I’ve also seen the acronym rendered as TER for “trans-exclusionary reactionary,” which would describe her adequately. Or TEF, without the “radical.”

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

Given that the average layperson seems unlikely to know the exact definition of a radical feminist compared to a liberal feminist or other type, I’m not sure if it’s useful to limit our usage of the term TERF to only people who meet the dictionary definition of a radical feminist. I think that TERF is also a useful term that can be used to identify people who advocate for transphobic bigotry and actions while using the language and trappings of supposed ‘progressiveness’, even if it’s not strictly the ‘correct’ term.

In terms of the ‘well the transphobes will blow off the term by saying that it doesn’t apply to them” argument, I don’t know that it holds water. It is exceedingly rare for bigots to not dismiss even exactly correct terms for their behaviour. How many racists will proclaim that they aren’t racist, and misogynists will proclaim that they’re not sexist, etc?

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@Catalpa

I think that TERF is also a useful term that can be used to identify people who advocate for transphobic bigotry and actions while using the language and trappings of supposed ‘progressiveness’, even if it’s not strictly the ‘correct’ term.

This is how I generally use it, as their tactics and arguments are different than other kinds of transphobes.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 year ago

Given that the average layperson seems unlikely to know the exact definition of a radical feminist compared to a liberal feminist or other type, I’m not sure if it’s useful to limit our usage of the term TERF to only people who meet the dictionary definition of a radical feminist.

That’s the biggest issue with the term, is that it associates radical feminism with transphobia and makes them interchangeable. It makes it hard for someone to say “I’m a radical feminist” without a bunch of people jumping down on them on the grounds that if you’re are radical, you must be a TERF. Because obviously nobody is transphobic unless they are radical! It’s right there in the term!

I think that TERF is also a useful term that can be used to identify people who advocate for transphobic bigotry and actions while using the language and trappings of supposed ‘progressiveness’, even if it’s not strictly the ‘correct’ term.

Language matters, and splash damage is not okay, especially when it’s unnecessary and easy to avoid.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
1 year ago

@PoM:

That’s the biggest issue with the term, is that it associates radical feminism with transphobia and makes them interchangeable.

This is the exact same argument as given by rightwingers who melt down over the phrase “toxic masculinity”. Not all masculinity is toxic and not all radical feminists are trans-exclusionary. Either the term TERF isn’t problematic, or the phrase “toxic masculinity” is.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

That’s the biggest issue with the term, is that it associates radical feminism with transphobia and makes them interchangeable. It makes it hard for someone to say “I’m a radical feminist” without a bunch of people jumping down on them on the grounds that if you’re are radical, you must be a TERF. Because obviously nobody is transphobic unless they are radical! It’s right there in the term!

I don’t know that I buy this. The term Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist has, y’know, modifiers added to it. It is not synonymous with Radical Feminist, any more than toxic masculinity is synonymous with masculinity. If we can assume that “trans exclusionary” is presumed to be inextricable from “radical feminist”, why can we not assume that “radical” is also inextricable from the term? Does TERF make people think all feminists are transphobes as well? Why not?

I think generally radical feminism gets a bad rap because people are conditioned to believe that radical = bad/dangerous. See: radical Muslim, etc. I don’t believe that the term TERF makes it harder to identify as a radical feminist, because if it wasn’t ‘oh so you’re a transphobe’ it would be ‘oh so you hate all men’ or ‘oh so you think bi women should only date women’, etc.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 year ago

Not all masculinity is toxic and not all radical feminists are trans-exclusionary.

Exactly. You’re making my point for me.

Either the term TERF isn’t problematic, or the phrase “toxic masculinity” is.

The term TERF is only problematic when applied to people who are not actually radical feminists. If you equate “transphobe” with “radical feminist,” as you do when you call non-radical feminists TERFs, then you are arguing against what you just said and which I quoted above. You’re saying all transphobes and radical feminists are identical, which is exactly the same as saying all masculinity is toxic.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@PoM

It makes it hard for someone to say “I’m a radical feminist” without a bunch of people jumping down on them on the grounds that if you’re are radical, you must be a TERF.

I recognize that issue, but the term does have a use and is established as such for about the last decade. There are other proposed terms I’ve heard like Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe (FART) or fauxminist or phlegmanist, but none of those have the same established currency and use.

Because obviously nobody is transphobic unless they are radical! It’s right there in the term!

No, the term does not say others aren’t transphobic or that all radical feminists are transphobic. It was created by a trans* inclusive radical feminist specifically to show that not all radical feminists are transphobes. As mentioned, it has shifted in use.

splash damage is not okay, especially when it’s unnecessary and easy to avoid.

But the term “TERF” specifically specifies its targets (the trans-exclusionary ones). It doesn’t affect trans* inclusive radfems. Now if I just said “radfems” to imply transphobia, that would have splash damage, but I didn’t say that.

Should we stop using the term National Socialism because it might make people think all socialists are Nazis?

@Catalpa

Does TERF make people think all feminists are transphobes as well? Why not?

I recall a similar argument a while ago with a commenter called Scanisaurus.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 year ago

I recognize that issue, but the term does have a use and is established as such for about the last decade.

The word “cr-zy” has a whooooooooooole lot more cultural cachet than “TERF” does. Does that make it an OK term to throw around willy-nilly? Don’t we think we’re better than that on this site? Don’t we recognize that the splash damage done by it is unacceptable, despite it being widely used elsewhere?

I’m not even saying “never use TERF.” Go ahead when the person to whom you’re referring is actually a radical feminist. There are plenty of them around; it’s actually quite controversial in radical feminist spaces to say you’re NOT trans-exclusionary. You should have no shortage of people on which to use it, if you like the term that much. What I’m saying is that using it for someone like Rowling, who is not a radfem and who is only questionably feminist at all, equates the two groups in an illegitimate way.

There are other proposed terms I’ve heard like Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe (FART) or fauxminist or phlegmanist, but none of those have the same established currency and use.

“Transphobe” has a good bit of cachet. Why not use it?

No, the term does not say others aren’t transphobic or that all radical feminists are transphobic.

When someone says something transphobic, and you apply the TERF term automatically despite that person not being a radical feminist, you are conveying that it is impossible for someone to be transphobic without being radical, that someone is radical simply by virtue of being transphobic. That elides the non-radical transphobes, and it certainly elides the non-transphobic radicals. It lumps transphobes and radicals together as one and the same.

Again: the problem is with applying this term to people who are not radical.

But the term “TERF” specifically specifies its targets (the trans-exclusionary ones).

And it’s misapplied when it targets non-radicals or non-feminists. Doing that pushes non-radicals and non-feminists into the radfem club by saying they are transphobes and transphobes are radical definitionally.

Should we stop using the term National Socialism because it might make people think all socialists are Nazis?

The Nazis weren’t socialist at all, and in fact killed socialists in death camps. Is that really the analogy you want to make?

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

The Nazis weren’t socialist at all, and in fact killed socialists in death camps.

TERFs and assorted transphobes seem more than happy to see trans women (and trans men, but especially trans women) dead, and I’m sure plenty of trans folks identify as feminist, so I’m not sure the analogy is entirely off the mark there.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@PoM

The word “cr-zy” has a whooooooooooole lot more cultural cachet than “TERF” does. Does that make it an OK term to throw around willy-nilly?

Are you seriously trying to claim TERF is a slur? Because it seem like you’re equating the two words.

“Transphobe” has a good bit of cachet. Why not use it?

Because a TERF is a specific kind of transphobe. That’s why the term exists in the first place.

It lumps transphobes and radicals together as one and the same.

No it doesn’t. It specifically refers to trans* exclusionary radical feminists. Does calling people who have blonde hair as “blonde haired people” imply that all people have blonde hair?

The Nazis weren’t socialist at all, and in fact killed socialists in death camps. Is that really the analogy you want to make?

I know they weren’t, my point is that we still refer to them as National Socialists despite them not being socialists. Similarly, we can use the term TERF to refer to people who aren’t radical feminists as a descriptor of a type of transphobe. Most people who use the term know what it means, same as we know the Nazis weren’t socialists.

Language changes. Word definitions change.

@Catalpa
IIRC trans* people of all kinds are more likely to self identify as feminists than their cis counterparts. Although that wasn’t the intent of my analogy, I see how it fits.

And of course TERFs are often quite happy to work hand in hand with Nazis when it suits them.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 year ago

Are you seriously trying to claim TERF is a slur? Because it seem like you’re equating the two words.

Did I say “cr-zy” is a slur? I apply it to myself all the time. I’m -‘ing it because I don’t want my posts caught in an autofilter, not because I think it’s a slur.

But as long as we’re on that topic, if you apply TERF indiscriminately, you’re using it like a slur and playing directly into the TERF argument that the term is a slur.

Because a TERF is a specific kind of transphobe. That’s why the term exists in the first place.

So let’s restrict its use to that specific kind. We’re in agreement now!

It specifically refers to trans* exclusionary radical feminists.

Again, we’re in agreement!

Similarly, we can use the term TERF to refer to people who aren’t radical feminists as a descriptor of a type of transphobe.

Damn, and I thought we were making progress when you agreed that the term actually means (as it says on the can) radical feminists. What’s with the back and forth? Please explain to me how you can say that you understand that TERF means radical feminists and then say it means non-radical feminists sometimes.

Language changes. Word meanings change.

Language matters. Cr-zy has a meaning that has changed over time. That doesn’t make it okay to use it indiscriminately. And I’m standing here disagreeing with you that TERF has an indiscriminate meaning, so not everyone agrees with you that it’s okay to spray it out of a shotgun.

You obviously think it’s fine, because you’re making no effort to change the language by using FART or whatever other acronym would be more appropriate. I’m sure a lot of your friends think it’s fine. I’m saying it’s not fine because it has splash damage on me, it gives liberal feminists who are transphobes a free pass like they don’t exist and can’t possibly be transphobes, it allows transphobes to laugh you off because they’re not radical feminists and know it, and it elides transphobes with radicals like they are the same.

And it would cost you exactly nothing to only use the term when it applies to a radical feminist. It costs you nothing to choose some other term for people like Rowling. So I don’t understand the huge blowback I’m getting here. It would cost you. nothing.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@PoM

But as long as we’re on that topic, if you apply TERF indiscriminately, you’re using it like a slur and playing directly into the TERF argument that the term is a slur.

I’m not applying it indiscriminately. I don’t think Mike Pence is a TERF, for instance, because he is a transphobe but doesn’t use any feminist language to justify it. I am applying it to mean what the vast majority of people accept it to mean. As Wikipedia puts it, “The meaning has since expanded to refer more broadly to people with trans-exclusive views who may have no involvement with radical feminism.” I don’t think that definition is perfect, but it shows the accepted meaning, what people will interpret it as, has changed. It is now generally read to mean transphobes who use pseudo feminist or progressive language to justify their transphobia. That’s how I use it, that’s how David uses it, that’s how the majority of people who use this term use it.

So let’s restrict its use to that specific kind. We’re in agreement now!

Does this mean that every time we want to call someone out we have to assess whether they are a radical feminist or not in order to apply the correct term? That makes it a lot less useful.

Damn, and I thought we were making progress when you agreed that the term actually means (as it says on the can) radical feminists. What’s with the back and forth? Please explain to me how you can say that you understand that TERF means radical feminists and then say it means non-radical feminists sometimes.

What I am trying to say is that it originally was limited to radical feminists but in contemporary usage is used to mean a specific type of transphobe that uses feminist sounding or otherwise progressive language to promote transphobia and other associated ideas. Language is typically descriptive, not prescriptive. Words often start out meaning one thing but broaden in scope to mean another.

You obviously think it’s fine, because you’re making no effort to change the language by using FART or whatever other acronym would be more appropriate.

I think it’s fine because it’s useful to have a term to describe a certain kind of transphobe that is different than other kinds. Like how it’s useful to be able to distinguish a Toyota from a Ford at the repair shop even though they are both cars. I don’t think it makes sense to come up with a new term when we have this term already in our lexicon. If we come up with a new term, I will constantly have to explain what I mean by a FART or a fauxminist or whatever, and it will be harder to get my point across.

I’m saying it’s not fine because it has splash damage on me

I’m not sure how this has splash damage on you, unless you are trans-exclusionary it doesn’t apply to you. You also said above that you are not a radical feminist.

it gives liberal feminists who are transphobes a free pass like they don’t exist and can’t possibly be transphobes

Well, if we accept the way I was using it, it includes liberal feminists who use the language of feminism to justify transphobia. I’ve heard Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Camille Paglia referred to as TERFs despite the fact that they are self-identified liberal feminists.

it allows transphobes to laugh you off because they’re not radical feminists and know it

I’ve never heard this type of transphobe laugh anyone off by saying they aren’t feminists. Generally they laugh people off by saying they’re not transphobic or mocking other people.

And it would cost you exactly nothing to only use the term when it applies to a radical feminist. It costs you nothing to choose some other term for people like Rowling. So I don’t understand the huge blowback I’m getting here. It would cost you. nothing.

It would make it harder to describe many people. It means instead of saying “JK Rowling is a TERF” I’d have to say “JK Rowling is transphobic and uses pseudo feminist language to justify it” to mean the same thing. That’s longer and leaves more room for misinterpretation.

Zemyla
Zemyla
1 year ago

I wonder how people will enforce the “no emotional attachments to sexbots” thing. I mean, people get emotionally attached to their Roombas, for God’s sake.

Sera the gay fox
Sera the gay fox
1 year ago

I like how the daily stormer gang and incels just cant comprehend like…. anything involving logistics and science, if (and thats a big if) we somehow make artificial human wombs and sex bots possible within a decade, they arnt gonna instantly become a thing you can pick up in a dollar store, robotics as it is is very niche outside of situations where you dont wanna risk a human life (bomb disposal, fire fighting, combat situations) and like… toys, and human wombs would only be sold to you know, hospitals and reproductive clinics, i doubt the average incel or daily stormer dork could shell out the thousands, perhaps millions, needed to get a robot and womb made, and pay dedicated roboticists and reproductive health specialists to somehow splice them together

Friendly Neighborhood Incel
Friendly Neighborhood Incel
1 year ago

Policy of Madness:

I hope this incel comes back to explain how to solve the great social injustice of women not having sex with him without force or violence.

Rolling back the “sexual revolution” would be a good start. Male-female pair bonding has served our species well for millions of years, and every aspect of the “sexual revolution” was aimed at undermining that.

“Unlimited mating choices with no consequences and no reproduction” is an agenda pushed by powerful, high-value men for their own personal convenience. It does not benefit women and in fact hurts them almost as much as it hurts low-value men.

Nobody needs to be punished or coerced. We just need to roll back the social indulgence granted to the promiscious and the perverted. Social disapproval is a powerful but gentle tool for social change.

But at this point I suspect western society is simply doomed. We’re addicted to pleasure and gratification. The real “force and violence” will come when Mother Nature puts things right, as she inevitably will, inevitably must. You can’t win against biology. I am genuinely regretful that so many western women will suffer when this happens.

Friendly Neighborhood Incel
Friendly Neighborhood Incel
1 year ago

I am not surprised you won’t let my post through moderation. A polite factual incel doesn’t fit the narrative, does it?

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@FNI

Male-female pair bonding has served our species well for millions of years

Uh, most animals, humans included, have engaged in same sex activity for millions of years. You clearly don’t know much about biology or anthropology.

It does not benefit women and in fact hurts them almost as much as it hurts low-value men.

What? I much prefer being able to choose my partners over being a sex slave to some random guy. How does it hurt women that we are considered people and not property?

We just need to roll back the social indulgence granted to the promiscious and the perverted. Social disapproval is a powerful but gentle tool for social change.

Ah, the Janice Raymond approach. So you do want to oppress people.

You can’t win against biology. I am genuinely regretful that so many western women will suffer when this happens.

Oddly, biology does not specify that women should be sex slaves. Patriarchy does. Seeing as most of the people who claim to be “saving Western civilization” want me dead, I can’t imagine I would suffer if their repressive norms were repealed. In fact, I think my life would be better if Nazis and incels stayed away from me.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Social disapproval is a powerful but gentle tool for social change.

It’s anything but gentle. There are so many ways that stigma kills.

So, you failed to find a way that we can get you a date without resorting to violence.

Also, people did have sex outside of marriage before the 1960’s. People were just less open about it. Plus, even if you got your wish a sex outside of marriage was stigmatized again, that doesn’t mean anyone would marry you. Wouldn’t women just marry a Chad instead?

If you want a nice, healthy relationship, I’m afraid you’re just going to have to make an effort.

Naglfar
Naglfar
1 year ago

@WWTH

Plus, even if you got your wish a sex outside of marriage was stigmatized again, that doesn’t mean anyone would marry you. Wouldn’t women just marry a Chad instead?

I get the feeling he wants to go back further than the ‘60s. He wants arranged marriage so all men have sex slaves.

If you want a nice, healthy relationship, I’m afraid you’re just going to have to make an effort.

B-b-but, that’s too much! Just for being born with a penis, he deserves a fully submissive virgin with the body of a supermodel. Asking for decency is too much. /s

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
1 year ago

I find it hilarious that the incel’s answer is “roll back the sexual revolution” which let me specify was mostly a revolution for women. Men could always be promiscuous with little to no consequence. It was only when women were able to behave as men have behaved for thousands of years that it became a problem.

We just need to roll back the social indulgence granted to the promiscious and the perverted. Social disapproval is a powerful but gentle tool for social change.

You want to go back to women being “disappeared” when they got pregnant out of wedlock. Yes, that’s a thing that happened on the regular – women, especially young women, who got pregnant out of wedlock would be shipped off to hell houses where they would give birth, their children were sometimes murdered, and they were also sometimes murdered, and were definitely abused and tortured for the crime of having sex. This occurred in some areas all the way up to the 1980s. That is what you want. That is your “gentle tool.”

You, sir, are the tool here, and not a very gentle one.

Male-female pair bonding has served our species well for millions of years

You act like this is not a thing anymore, but most men pair bond. Most men get married eventually. This hasn’t been abolished.

You can’t win against biology.

You’re, what, like 15? That’s when I grew out of my “biofacts” stage of life. Believe me, little incel, you’ll probably find a mate and get married one day, if you get rid of your toxic attitudes. As they say in the stock market, past performance is not a predictor of future performance.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

Nobody needs to be punished or coerced. We just need to roll back the social indulgence granted to the promiscious and the perverted. Social disapproval is a powerful but gentle tool for social change.

…. What do you think that coercion is? Do you think that social stigmatization is not a form of coercion?