Refusing a hug from a conservative or even just a normie family member is a brave assertion of autonomy and a rejection of the toxic idea that people "owe" other people physical affection. An "Oh! Ok so we're hugging now" hug cannot be rejected as it's inherently revolutionary. A bold act of mutual aid in a capitalist and hetero/cis/fascist hellscape of a country.
Why are all these guys middle-aged too? I remember listening to a Nancy Rommelman interview during the Reckoning where she said that most of the people showing up to protests were in their 30s and 40s, not teens. Whatever problems Gen Z has, they’re not the worst offenders.
Agree it is not wanted! But when Brad calls their internet beef a highlight of intersectional struggle, Katie’s “yessss!” is very much wanted. I would be happy with a loop of that audio.
Poor Nex. Not just because a child is dead, but because her death will now forever be used by extremely online people with an agenda and made into something that it wasn’t. She’s forever going to be shorthand for hate crime and reduced to nothing more than a non-binary identity that she very well may have grown out of by high school graduation (because I agree with Brad and Katie here - non-binary is essentially a way of saying, “I’m not a stereotype like everyone else,” and that’s just being a normal teenager). She was more than an identity in life, and now in death she’s a political football.
Agreed. I've unfortunately seen a kind of George Floydification of Nex where a complicated and human individual has this mythical martyr status thrust upon them. It's wild that many Progressives and Liberals see themselves as above mainstream religion but basically adopt the same kind of thinking in these cases complete clearly Christian-esque iconography of the "martyr" in question.
I’ve been preaching this gospel for a few years now! It’s been amazing to watch - I was originally drawn to progressivism because of their strong rationalist grounding but in recent years I’ve seen them basically reinvent the priesthood, the catechism, the Eucharist, and sainted martyrdom. I became a progressive because I thought it was a smart person’s refuge from the faith-based worldviews that I grew to dislike, and now progressives have just assumed all of the same structures with none of the history or grandeur, like Starbucks taking over an historic building.
I think this comment should be carved onto a clay tablet--so that it may survive after technology fails and we have giant conflagrations that we no longer know how to extinguish. It's critical data for future generations figuring-out what went wrong.
One thing not mentioned in this episode is that Nex’s own mother was apparently given a hard time for using Nex’s birth name. Seriously, this woman just lost her child, who she knew better than probably anybody else on the planet, but the world is fixated on a gender identity that was quite possibly just a teenage phase, and now I guess people are tripping over themselves to lecture about deadnaming to the point where she released a statement:
“We are sorry for not using their name correctly and as parents we were still learning the correct forms. Please do not judge us as Nex was judged, please do not bully us for our ignorance on the subject. Nex gave us that respect and we are sorry in our grief that we overlooked them. I lost my child, the headstone will have correct name of their choice.”
Forget your unimaginable pain right now, how dare you call your child by the name she was known by for most of her life! It’s sickening to see people projecting onto Nex at the expense of the people who actually knew and loved her.
There's no evidence that Nex thinks that her parents are bigots that hate her. There's actually a video of Nex talking to a police officer with her mom present they're referring to Nex with She/her pronouns and she was incredibly laid back while also admitting to starting the fight. Nex's death is a true tragedy as it always is when someone so young dies it's pretty gross to see that her death is being exploited in this fashion.
By her own admission (from the text message she sent that Katie read) Nex assaulted the other party first. This first-person witness account carries more weight to me than anything else I've read about this. Of course it's always sad when a young person dies, and all young people don't have the best judgement.
I think we all learned from the Andy Mills episode that nobody deserves to have their life ruined because they poured a cup of water over someone’s head. This is tragic on loads of different levels, but the ultimate point is that stupid teenage mistakes shouldn’t cloud the rest of anybody’s life, yet because of whatever tragic thing happened to cause Nex to suddenly die the next day, she’s lost her life and the other people involved will spend the rest of theirs stigmatized as Those Transphobes Who Killed Her. If their names aren’t already out there, then they will be soon, and…well, with the state of college campuses today, would you want to be the admissions officer who welcomes them to your institution? You’re going to have protests from students saying they feel unsafe sharing a university with transphobic murderers. (This is assuming there are no criminal charges.) Their best bet is to change their names and move to another state.
Adolescence is a time when you’re supposed to screw up and learn and grow and then eventually put your past behind you. But the internet making everything permanent, combined with what appears to be a terrible twist of fate in Nex dying, means a lot of people’s lives are ruined here.
Or she died of an unrelated cause. Or she had a brain aneurysm that could have been triggered by anything--every year there are a few sudden deaths of seemingly healthy young people after a roller coaster ride, or a basketball game, or a brisk jog, etc. Until there's a medical report made public, we don't know.
All we know now is that she (somehow) hit her head, and was checked out in a hostpital and released, and told to be careful if there are any symtoms of concussion.
After all the dancing in the streets on October 7th, I never want to hear the fucking words "stochastic terrorism" come out of a leftist's mouth ever again.
Genuinely trying to understand what one of these things has to do with the other. It's not like Hamas put out some kind of press release saying "we told our people not to commit terrorism, but those damn TikTokers kept telling them to!"
Like, that wasn't stochastic terrorism, it was just terrorism. Of the non-stochastic variety. Which obviously exists, or you wouldn't need the adjective.
Right. So I don’t want to hear a lecture from people who celebrate actual terrorism about how their ideological opponents are allegedly encouraging others to commit terrorism.
Okay. What about a leftist like me, who does not celebrate non-stochastic (I note, and reject, your insinuation that stochastic terrorism is not "actual") terrorism? It was immediately obvious to me that the Hamas attacks were indefensible even if one assumes a chauvinistically pro-Palestinian viewpoint, because they were going to get a ton of Palestinians killed in reprisal.
Am I bound to the opinions of a handful of myopic nutcases?
My position is functionally the same as the position of the current Democratic President of the United States. (I would be a little more aggressive at cutting off funding to Israel, since we don't need to be footing the bill for their war, but I'm not out there demanding that the US do something crazy to end it.)
To claim that that is "irrelevant" compared to the opinions of a handful of attention-whoring faux radicals on social media is... I don't even know how to describe it. "Totally absented from reality" might come close.
Your position puts you outside that of the mainstream left and therefore outside the scope of this conversation. Thank you for the contribution though!
The tragic death of Nex reminds me of Brianna Ghey's death - used as "proof" of rampant transphobia in the UK when it turns out the killers had picked multiple victims who weren't trans and eventually settled on Ghey out of chance/convenience.
I think it's interesting that Ghey's mother has decided to advocate for regulations around social media and phones for teens rather than go down the trans rights advocacy path.
What the mother is asking for makes no sense: "Ms Ghey also believes Brianna would still be alive if her teenage killers had been unable to access violent content on both the dark web and the regular internet as they plotted the murder.... I would like to see mobile phone companies, tech companies take more responsibility for children's welfare... I'd like to see mobile phones specifically made for under 16s where they can't access social media sites in the first place."
AFAIK the killers didn't identify Brianna through social media, they knew her from school. One of the killers supposedly watched violent videos via Tor (ie NOT social media) and was fascinated with serial killers which you can learn all about in the library or on Netflix. So regulating 'tech giants' would not have prevented this, even if we accept the probably false claim that watching violent videos makes you a violent psycho rather than psychos tending to seek out violent videos (along with a lot of other people who don't end up murdering anyone).
Maybe under 16s should have phones that are filtered to prevent them seeing violent content and lets their parents monitor their browsing. A responsible tech-literate parent can set that up already, but if you haven't noticed your 15 year old daughter is a murderous psycho you're probably not responsible enough to do that, but then you're also probably not going to notice if she acquires an unfiltered prepay phone or some other workaround.
Also funny that 'Asked whether she believes there should be a ban on mobile phones in schools, Ms Ghey said it would be too difficult to enforce and there are "already so many pressures on teachers".' That would actually be a good policy, not to prevent rare murders but just to avoid distracting kids, and has to be workable because some schools do it.
Women in the UK are killed every 2 days or so. Brianna was the second trans murder (as in a murdered trans identifying person, not the motive) here since 2018. They don't care about the tragic loss of life involved, they don't care about the growing number of young people turning to extreme violence, they just care that the cult keeps growing and noone dares question a thing.
"Women in the UK are killed every 2 days or so." This makes it sound like every woman in the UK is killed every 2 days. A better way to put that statistic is that about 200 women are killed a year in the UK, which is a low homicide rate for a country of 70 million people.
It's like 11 per million per year and 70% of victims are men.
For further context, there are about 4000 women murdered in the US per year, or around 10 per day. The US obviously has nowhere even close to 20 times the UK's population (more like 5 times), so that's a staggeringly higher murder rate here, in the neighborhood of 400 percent of the UK's.
In general the US tolerates murder rates that in any normal developed country would immediately result in confiscation of all guns and probably martial law. Instead, we blame it on trans women in bathrooms. Go us.
If only those transwomen would throw up their hands and acknowledge they are just biological Men, Women wouldn't need to make issues like bathrooms such a big deal. Since those Men refuse to identify as anything other than Women, Just Literally Women, the issue isn't going to go away. Since transwomen commit the same crimes as every other group of Men on Earth, the issue is relevant. Just one violent male rapist identifying as a Woman is enough to cause the alarm bells to ring. Its those Men and those of you who refuse to see them as Men who have destroyed decades of good faith and activism. Maybe the trans community should stop enabling these Men and start telling them to fuck off and leave Women alone. THEN you can complain about it.
"If only those transwomen would throw up their hands and acknowledge they are just biological Men, Women wouldn't need to make issues like bathrooms such a big deal."
Really? So if a trans woman said "I am a biological man who needs to use the women's restroom for safety reasons," you would be totally okay with that? No, I don't think so. So it's not, in fact, the "acknowledgement" that you want; it's that you want to literally treat trans women as men in all respects. Even when they are obviously distinguishable.
"Since transwomen commit the same crimes as every other group of Men on Earth,"
[citation needed]
"Just one violent male rapist identifying as a Woman is enough to cause the alarm bells to ring."
Just one Jew drinking the blood of a Christian child ought to do the same! All conspiracy theories are valid if there is literally even one example that can be summoned forth!
"destroyed decades of good faith and activism"
Oh yeah, you were TOTALLY going to support trans rights until they went and... asked for rights. Totally. Look what they made you do. Very believable stuff from "itsacult."
TW are Men, full stop. There is no alternative universe where they are actually Literally Women, and its the Men who know they don't pass who still enter single sex spaces that are the issue. Passing TW will pass and noone will know, as has always been the case. Those people however are extremely rare, no matter how much your cult wants to pretend that trans identifying people pass in most situations, because they dont. Thats their problem, and you trying to force them into Womens spaces is on you and whatever is left of your cult influenced conscience.
TW do indeed commit the same crimes as every other group of Men.
All of those people who take on a trans identity are Men with a trans identity. It doesn't matter if they're fabricating that identity or if they truely believe their gender souls are different from their sexed meatsacks. They are Men using the trans identity to access vulnerable people, commit crimes and harm society. Those same Men YOU want to wave into Womens spaces unquestioned.
I lived with a TW throughout part of the pandemic and we got on great. He cofounded a local trans resource centre and worked primarily with young people, health groups, schools an law orgs. Since then I've discovered that Man was removed from his position at that trans resource centre due to inappropriate behaviour towards youth clientelle. You can wank into oblivion about TW being this untouchable, unquestionable, 100% pure and loving community of Special Women, but most of us know that isn't the case and we are actively working to ensure this cult can do no more harm
I don't give a shit how someone identifies, I give a shit about the people using those identities to harm people. I give a shit about the people who actively enable that. I'm going to leave it here because you're delusional and I made a point of disengaging with delusional assholes when I left the TQ+.
Have a nice day, get therapy, tranwomen are men, transmen are women and nonbinary still doesn't exist, cis.
That was at least a straightforward murder case in which we know the cause of death, this is far more cynical, we don't know how Nex died and the 'attack' was a typical schoolyard fight.
It's disappointing that Katie and Jessie consistently misunderstand and misrepresent the concept of grooming and how it relates to predatory behaviour. Sure it may be a term that's thrown around too much but Marsh's conduct definitely counts. It doesn't have to involve a direct attempt at access, any attempt to bypass normal safeguarding procedures, both personal and societal, absolutely is grooming, even if it's done with the best of intentions.
Jessie and Katie are routinely dismissive about non-passing transwomen in women’s bathrooms. The problem is that in the past, if an apparent male went into a woman’s room, the staff could help eject him. Now, at best they’ll do nothing. So bathroom rights make it OK for any man to enter a woman’s space, just as Marsh’s behavior clears the way for actual predators
... it literally doesn't happen. Show me evidence that this actually happens on more than a nutpicking level.
It's incredibly ironic that this discussion is occurring on a thread of a podcast episode specifically complaining about blowing incredibly rare isolated incidents out of proportion.
Well…. #NotNotAllMen … but the kind of men with whom we *would* feel safe in a public women’s room are the ones least likely to use a public woman’s room
Sex separated restrooms make them comfortable to use. The presence of other people is what makes them safe. The only bathroom assault I’m familiar with in my area was at a quiet rest stop where the man just hid in the woman’s room without trying to look like a woman
Yeah, the idea that there's this rash of men going around representing themselves to be trans women and then somehow exploiting that to assault people has to be one of the dumbest blood libels I've ever heard. Absolutely made up slander.
What makes it particularly idiotic is that it's a complete misunderstanding of the law. Businesses can kick women out of women's restrooms if they think they are creepy, and it does not matter whether the woman in question is cis or trans. Remember "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? The only thing that you can't do in trans-supportive states is kick someone out SPECIFICALLY FOR BEING TRANS. Perish the thought of not being able to intentionally discriminate against someone!
In an above comment you acknowledge how often women are murdered by men. That men commit violent crimes far more than 10:1 compared to women is a stat that has remained robust over the history of civilization. But this is not just murder and physical assault, but even more frequently it includes sexual assault (including exposing oneself, etc.). This happens far, far more than murder. Most of the time it does not even get reported. (I have had strange men expose themselves to me, put their hands on me on buses or subways, etc, and I don't report those things because they are so common and fleeting.)
When men want to commit these acts, they go out of their way to do it. They do what they have to do to achieve their goals. Knowing all of this, why would you imagine that men being in women's private spaces would not be a problem? That there would not be men who exploit the ability to do this by deciding to be trans? That this would not put women in danger? And yes, there have been reported cases of this, including men pretending to be trans who get into women's prisons and then rape female prisoners. Again, many, many women have been assaulted, molested, groped, flashed, and harassed by men. It is pretty much ubiquitous. How can you not be sympathetic to our wanting our privacy boundaries to remain secure?
I'm sorry that men are always suspect of this, even when the majority would never commit these acts, and even when they identify as trans and would not commit these acts. We all wish this were not so. Obviously. We'd like to live in peace and not feel like we are in constant danger. We'd like there to be no reason for boundaries. But we biological females are not the ones creating the issue. We are just trying to protect ourselves from it. (No idea if you are male or female but just representing the women who agree with me.)
Let me also add that every time I've been groped it was on a bus in a shitty neighborhood or overnight train, or flashed in a not-great area of the city, or in some other situation that generally occurs to the not-rich. Thus: prisons, shelters, etc. I think imagining women and girls are safe from predation is a "luxury belief," as Rob Henderson has put it. No offense, but I think it's something to consider.
"Knowing all of this, why would you imagine that men being in women's private spaces would not be a problem?"
Because it doesn't happen.
"That there would not be men who exploit the ability to do this by deciding to be trans?"
It doesn't happen.
"And yes, there have been reported cases of this, including men pretending to be trans who get into women's prisons and then rape female prisoners."
I dunno about you, but I've never stopped off at the local women's prison and asked to use the bathroom. That, too, does not happen.
Now, I have no doubt that there have, in fact, been cis men who have faked being trans in an attempt to get admitted to women's prisons, although the motives for doing so are complex and may be as much about trying to avoid male prisoners as they are about trying to gain access to female ones. No matter. The point here is that a prison is a guarded long-term residency where it is actually practical to both heavily regulate who has access and to evaluate whether such access is appropriate based on factual evidence (and, I would add, such regulation is practical precisely because a prison is NOT private; it's a completely totalitarian controlled environment). A bathroom is something that people wander freely into and out of in 60 seconds. There are no "bathroom guards" checking who gets in and out; the very idea is ridiculous and fascistic.
As Jules from Pulp Fiction would say, these aren't in the same ballpark, they aren't the same league, hell they aren't even the same fuckin' sport. You can't just handwave the incredibly obvious differences between them by calling them "women's private spaces."
The short answer is that I can not be sympathetic to fake claims of danger because those claims are fake. I'm not sympathetic to Christians claiming Jews drank the blood of their children--not because it wouldn't be a bad thing if that happened, but because it never happened and the claims that it did were a pack of intentionally defamatory lies. So it is here.
I totally agree. Grooming describes the behavior, not the "molestation" outcome, and it is a very useful word for someone who is luring kids in an insidious way. And yes, Marsh is grooming kids into his cult in exactly, precisely the same way a pedophile grooms kids into being comfortable with crossing boundaries and participating in what they may have formerly considered to be abhorrent behaviors. Getting kids used to adults crossing boundaries by acting like their friend/family member/supporter so that they may influence their thinking, all with predatory intentions, is the act of grooming a child, no matter the outcome. Again: It's simply a useful word for this singular type of behavior.
Suzen - thank you so much for this. A lot of things just fell into place.
I had a highschool teacher who would ask me to stay after class because he wanted to discuss a my assignments. I was an incredibly shy and awkward girl and was delighted that he saw that I was really special deep down. At first he called me talented and then it went onto “you know you’re beautiful when you smile” type of thing. Nothing happened but I both craved and feared those after class talks.
He lost interest in me suddenly and moved on. It was devastating but I dodged a bullet because he was later fired for I think kissing another girl or worse.
Nothing has to actually physically happen for this type of grooming or whatever behaviour to impact you. It feels like someone finally sees your inner core when you are so desperate for it to be seen… but it’s scary, disorienting and overwhelming. Your heart knows it’s unsafe even though it feels good and, on a deep level that doesn’t come out immediately, you lose a bit of trust in yourself and others.
The comment in another post saying Marsh is like an unwanted hug is both hilarious and sadly very true.
Yes, that's exactly the process. The adult slowly and carefully crosses boundaries, creates intimacy, makes the child feel good, makes them feel supported or loved or admired, and of course this is done one-on-one with no one else aware of it. Often, as it intensifies, they try to isolate the child, keep their relationship a secret, place a wedge between the child and those who might protect them. They usually try to acclimate the child to their desires, like hugging and touching in seemingly innocent ways, or acclimating them to ideas and normalizing things the child might instinctually find wrong. That's the process.
I'm so sorry you went through that and glad it did not go too far. I've had it happen to me also, natch! It's so common that kids need to be aware of how it works. And it's why teachers, in general, should be carerful about being overly friendly with children, even if it's innocent. There needs to be professionalism for these very reasons, just as you would not act certain ways with bosses or other colleagues. Teachers who act like "friends" with their students and introduce them to their personal lives, etc., are not acting professionally and in a way that protects the children. There should be a respectful distance.
And Jeffrey Marsh, if nothing else, is acclimating kids to being groomed as he attempts to lure them into his lifestyle. Children need to learn that this kind of behavior is a red flag. (And child abuse is so common, there is no reason to think that Marsh is not capable of it. He certainly has the methods down pat. It's a terrible thing to suggest, but come on...)
Oh wow. You totally get it. I’m sorry this happened to you too but thank you for sharing. I never quite understood what was making me uncomfortable and now I do. Your comment summed it up.
Thank you! Jeffrey Marsh doesn’t appear to be a pedophile but he’s certainly doing some serious legwork to help them out.
How would a child be able to know the difference btwn a “nice” stranger on the internet who encourages sexuality related conversations with adults and isolation from your family and one who intends to do harm? The point is that the behavior itself is inappropriate, regardless of intent, and puts children at risk.
I've cut ties with acquaintances over this kind of boundary-pushing behavior, not because I thought they were bad or dangerous people, but because I thought it set a bad precedent.
Maybe I'm just young but the ideological grooming or creepy behavior/overstepping bounds is what always pops into my head when I hear grooming. I actually learned about the real definition here. For someone who is an actual criminal I say they are a child predator or molester.
It's worth noting that groomer is being used all the time now for even people who are in their early 20's talking to teenagers. Sometimes even sending flirty texts to someone with a 2 year age difference still gets you into trouble. There is tons of youtube drama where underage fans accuse their stars of grooming even though nothing sexual took place at all (example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH5KjQWLjt4). Younger generations I don't think even care what the word used to mean.
Agreed. They're seeking a different kind of gratification. Complete pied piper syndrome. They want kids to see them as a guru and follow them. I've known teachers with this complex and while not as horrible as actual, big G grooming, the potential for harm is not trivial.
I agree grooming encompasses a lot of actions and i would add there is even a benign form of grooming. You can groom people towards lots of purposes and I would argue that if you are in a mentoring role (teachers) you are probably practicing some form grooming. Generally it is towards a positive end. The issue with the general groomer discourse is that it implies that any discussion of gender and sexuality with minors is inherently grooming kids to pursue those identities(or worse), especially if the discussion is led by a gay or Trans person. I find this wrong. I agree I don't think teachers should be influencing childern to adopt these identities, but certainly these identities should be represented in sex education. There is a lot of daylight between discussing these topics and grooming kids towards these identities. Most of the discussion surrounding lgbt grooming in schools comes across inflationary and bigoted to me. However, I do think there is probably a concerning level of inappropriate grooming happening online that targets kids exploring their sexuality and gender. The guy they discussed in podcast at least causes me to raise an eyebrow and if I had kids I would probably not let them watch him.
My fear with the groomer discourse is that it has become far too regressive and is going to lead to schools shying away from any discussion of these topics.
I think I'd broadly agree and you certainly highlight the problem with the all-or-nothing approach that we see in public discourse today. What's appropriate should be a matter of policy and not for individual educators and certainly not people like Marsh to decide.
Few people creep me out more than Jeffrey Marsh. His extreme close-ups, macabre grins, and telling strangers they're his 'family now', inviting minors to contact him. If any less colorfully attired male did this, they'd be toast.
I’m still listening, but I can’t help but feel that if we had responsible journalists report on the stories and issues that LOTT covers that maybe we could have more civil discourse, cool the extreme responses, and appropriately address real issues. Chaya is not a journalist yet LOTT is hugely popular. Why? The actual media denies, ignores, distracts and gaslights while criminals, deviants, and opportunists run for cover. LOTT gets it wrong at times and the tactics are far from ideal in some cases, but where else can people go?
Unfortunately, anyone who mentions some of the issues that are covered (or posted) by LOTT are dismissed as transphobes, bigots, racists, alt right, MAGA. While people may not agree with the approach, we can’t ignore that the content that’s posted is at times disturbing no matter where you are on the political spectrum.
But, we’re stuck because no one in legacy media pays attention to anything LOTT posts (except to denigrate and blame it) and they refuse to cover legit issues because they don’t want to be labeled.
I think this is a really good point. Another poster mentioned in the open thread that they often have to go to the Daily Mail for pictures associated with news stories when other news sources refuse to post them (in this case, it was an antisemitic drawing posted by a Harvard faculty group).
In the same way, I often find myself going to local conservative news sources of questionable credibility just to access some information to help me go off and start my own research. I would much prefer credible, vetted reporting that didn't have a political tilt to it, but find that is less and less valued these days.
Jeez, I identify. I still can't believe I first go to the NY Post to find out what is happening in NYC. NYT seems to concentrate its metro coverage on which restaurants are progressively cool and what a SJW does on they/them's weekend.
My problem with LOTT from what I’ve seen is that she’s no longer content to let a retweet speak for itself - she’s (mis) characterizing them in inflammatory ways
Obliquely related: I’ve always found it interesting how trans people and other groups make a huge fuss insisting people acknowledge that they "exist". (Presumably having an audience is an essential ingredient in autogynephilia.) Then Libs of TikTok comes along and just literally reposts their voluntary public behavior - essentially doing nothing more than acknowledging their existence - and people get mad.
It’s very strange. Libs of TikTok doesn’t do anything beyond draw attention to things people say and do openly and it causes anger…but all they’re doing is shining a light on the brain-breaking effects of social media. It’s like showing a bunch of medical students pictures of a liver ravaged by cirrhosis from alcohol abuse and having them get angry at the instructor rather than curious about the etiology of the symptoms.
That was Brad's point, too. If all Libs of TikTok did was repost TikTok videos that people wanted to reach an audience with, I'd have no complaints. She does bother me a bit when she falls for hoaxes, urban legends, or picks on non-public gay or otherwise eccentric people who weren't making content for public consumption.
Really interested to know if anyone has any credible evidence for this, as at this stage, it has just joined the stock response about AGP being spat out by dodgy Twitter accounts.
It could well be the case, but I’m not just accepting the word of @TerfUltra666.
Unless that’s the burner account of Ray Blanchard, then I’d say that those ideas aren’t necessarily originating on twitter but are either coevolving or being echoed by people familiar with his work (or related work by Freund and Bailey). We’re talking about social science so hard and fast evidence will generally be lacking but there’s scholarship on behavioral AGP as one of the core typologies. Believe him or not, and again being social science there’s always going to be a healthy debate, but “AGP needs an audience” is an idea that exists and we need to “acknowledge” it.
Assume you already knew that though and were just asking a tendentious question.
Anecdotally, the selfies posted from women’s rooms by middle-aged biological men in girly-girl attire supports the hypothesis of AGP’s needing an audience. FWIW I’d be much more sympathetic were I to see selfies of transwomen washing dishes, vacuuming the house, folding laundry, etc. Now THAT would be sexy
I just gave you the names of three scholars as a starting point. I’m not Siri so I don’t do web searches on demand; if your Google subscription ran out find a friend’s to borrow and research this yourself, or apply for a library card. Do that and we can continue discussing the topic; otherwise please stop clogging my feed with concern trolling.
It's chockablock with links to (and summaries of) research on the etiology of transition. There does seem to be a two-peak distribution when it comes to transition, with late-in-life transitioners being much, much more likely to associate it with erotic feelings as opposed to revulsion at having the "wrong" body parts. She is, however, strongly supportive of everyone living their best lives whether or not that involves transition, and regardless of the motives for pursuing it.
I think Libs of tiktok is essentially the same thing as what Rightwingwatch and Media matters do. Expose the other political side's rhetoric that is supposed to be inside-baseball to your side to mock it and also learn what they're up to. Of course the distinguishing factor here is that Libs of tiktok's targets are usually not radio-hosts or televangelists but teachers, therapists and doctors whose careers don't revolve around politics.
I think there’s a type of person whose life revolves around politics even if their job doesn’t necessarily. I’ve been fortunate enough to insinuate myself into both subcultures and there are sports fans (that is, “that other team is a bunch of evildoers and our team hasn’t committed a foul in the history of the franchise” types) on all sides. It’s useful to have an historical record of how many people, regardless of profession, go around voluntarily and publicly expressing execrable ideas while thinking they’re the good guys. I’d like to think it helps those who are inclined to be in-group critics to speak up.
Ok. I have to share this experience apropos of today’s episode.
When our kids were toddlers we were looking for a nanny. On one of the sites a man came up. My wife and I discussed them as a candidate. I work with kids in volunteer and other capacities so the topic of the bias against men in non traditional roles was not a foreign topic.
My wife said from bias or not she got bad vibes. I commented that as a parent we ought to always go with our gut. Even if it’s based on prejudice. Because at the end of the day if you go against your gut and you were right, you’ll never forgive yourself. But if you’re wrong you just passed on someone who, realistically, is probably no better or worse than the next.
Well. Probably not hard to see where this is going….but….
About 6 weeks later the local paper ran a story about a male nanny busted using their job to film kiddie porn. Of the worst kind. Got caught on a nanny cam and the search turned up…. a lot.
Some prejudices exist for a reason. And the cost of proving your open mindedness and being wrong is too goddamn high.
*edit*
In case it’s not clear. Yes. It was the exact same person.
Gut feelings reveal a lot. Almost 15 years ago, I got a bad feeling about a Cub Scout leader. I was at his house dropping something off and I just had a sense that it would be safer to leave, pronto. I practically fell down his front steps backing out of the doorway.
I told my husband we needed to switch our son to a different pack. He asked why. I said that I thought “Joe” struck me as a guy with bodies buried in his basement or who skinned Dalmatians for funsies. I acknowledged that “I was probably being ridiculous”, but Joe would never be around our son.
A couple years later, we saw Joe in the paper…child sexual abuse.
That’s not the only example of my gut serving me very well.
When I was a tween I rarely saw my uncle who lived over seas. When I did see him he made me extremely uncomfortable. I had never felt like that before and I couldn't tell you a single thing he did different to my many other male relatives. He wasn't the only male relative I only saw occasionally but he was the only one who made me feel like that.
I didn't see him for about 6 years between being 12ish to 18ish. When I saw him as an adult the discomfort was gone.
That's it. The end of the story. There was no vindication. Maybe it was nothing. Whenever people talk about vibes I always think of that uncle and wonder.
When people talk about vibes, all I can think about is confirmation bias. We never think about all those people we had bad vibes about who turned out to be benign people. We only ever think of the hits. There are a lot of good men out there who are treated poorly or neglected because they don't have the right facial expressions or physical mannerisms that have the unwritten, unspoken approval of the general public, especially women.
I'll happily treat 50 men poorly (defined as not giving them a job if I get bad vibes) if it keeps the one man who would hurt my kids from ever being near them. In fact, I'm tempted to side with my wife and just take a hard pass on men that apply for baby sitting, nanny, or similar jobs by default.
However, considering in 10 years I've only ever once a) had to consider a man for a job that involved children and b) got bad vibes and took a pass.....I'm currently batting 1000 and there's no room for confirmation bias since it really just doesn't happen that much.
Maybe. It's the only time its every happened to me and I never told anyone (nothing to tell) I just avoided him which, if there was nothing to worry about, would effect him not even a little bit.
The second part of your post is really hyperbolic. There area lot of good *people* out there who are treated poorly for a myriad of reasons beyond their control by both women and men. Being ugly, fat or having a physical deformity would far more people than "vibes" by any metric.
First off - I’m very happy to hear you avoided getting caught up in this. That would have been traumatizing for everyone involved.
Second, I’m a stats person and it’s been a slow process to warm up to the idea of trusting gut feelings…but it’s amazing how often they’re right, too. I’ve started to accept that maybe evolutionarily there was a benefit to being able to assess microscopic tells and tics that let you know “hey, this guy’s no good” and the ones who had that trait survived more often to pass down their genes.
Sam Harris often likes to point out that the majority of our thought processes are unconscious. There's ample evidence that many decisions are made prior to any conscious thought. The "reason" for performing the action coming post hoc and is layered onto the behavior so it makes sense to us.
I think "gut feelings" are an awareness of the unconscious prat of our decision making prior to layering on the rationale.
It blows my mind that a subset of men have preyed on children for as long as humanity has existed, yet we *still* have to argue why it makes sense to be suspicious of men who seek to be alone with children.
Yeah, not all men are pedos. But the vast majority of pedos are men.
Like I said above. You can be wrong 10 times and right once. But if you ignore your gut.....the outcome is still unacceptable.
And you can totally avoid it with a very ridiculously simply heuristic: don't hire men to baby sit your kids.
It's the seatbelt of child care. Doesn't matter most people go their entire lives and are never in a life threatening accident. Just put the seat belt on. It's simple. Low effort and not inconvenient at all. It'll save you if you need it.
What puzzles me about Jeffrey Marsh is that anyone would take him seriously. He is profoundly creepy and physically distasteful. He comes across as the Mouth of Sauron.
I don’t know much about Patreon, but do his hundreds of thousands of TikTok followers translate into much money? Are people actually taking the action of paying to talk to him, and do we have an idea of how many? I can’t imagine young people view him as particularly aspirational - being a near-50-year-old on the Internet and all. His behavior is inappropriate even if no minor actually chats with him, I’m just curious whether kids actually are doing this.
Good question. Reasonably normal young people find him repulsive, I am sure, but maybe there are some desperately lonely and confused kids who find something in him. But it could all be delusion on his part.
Thousands of women are killed (homicides) every single year in the United States. A significant number of those are committed by their male partners, and obviously the vast majority are committed by males.
Surely these are acts of hate.
It’s about time we shine a light of reality on actual harm that is carried out, too regularly, against women.
When I really think about it, it’s pretty disgusting that coffee shops hang “Black Trans Lives Matter” signs, when women are killed far more often by partners and strangers. . . . Am I the only one who listens to Dateline?
I remember my partner had a dept zoom meeting on racism the day after the Atlanta spa shootings. It wasn’t even 24 hours and the dept chair started the meeting talking about the shooting and assuming it was an anti-Asian hate crime. I used to live in Fayetteville, NC (outside Fort Liberty aka Fort Bragg) so I know there are a lot of Asian massage parlours. But even without knowing anything about the shooter’s motives, it seemed racist to assume that someone wanting to shoot Asians is automatically gonna head for a massage parlor. Especially when there’s a category of individuals already associated with massage paroles and that’s women.
Grr, I get angry all over again reading your comment. Yeah, it was a hate crime -- an anti-woman hate crime. The entire media refused to cover it that way.
I mean the actual story turned out to be that he regularly used the services of those parlours but was a religious nut and felt guilty about it and blamed the women for 'tempting' him, so really they weren't targetted primarily for being Asian or for being women, but for being sex workers.
A few years ago, Netflix produced a controversial show called 13 Reasons Why. The premise of the show was that a teenage girl committed suicide and sent out letters to people explaining the 13 reasons why she did - her various grievances against named people in her life, some very legitimate, others much less so. While she took her own life, she blamed her death on all of those other people.
I think that some people see death or catastrophe as a way to teach others a lesson and/or want their perceived or actual tormentors to be labelled as killers in order to avenge their suffering. In death, they can be martyrs, and the people who are blamed, whether directly responsible or not, are villains. Unfortunately, that’s a powerful rhetorical tool.
I see the trans genocide rhetoric or the immediate assumption that crimes against certain people are hate crimes as somewhat paralleling the girl in 13 Reasons Why. They want to be martyrs so that they can show their opponents (genuine or perceived) to be evil and bloodthirsty and to force them to reckon with themselves. It’s a terrible impulse, and threatening suicide if other people don’t give you what you want is considered a form of abuse. Nevertheless, within certain ideologies, weaponizing death is tacitly or sometimes explicitly encouraged because of the ways that it can be used against the other side.
A woman I know well was in a relationship with a man who manipulated her with threats of suicide into not leaving him - for years. I think of that relationship every time I hear dead son /live daughter rhetoric. It is deeply ugly to use threats of suicide to control others. Or to use suicide as a way to hurt another person.
TMI but my late mother, may she rest in peace, was a physician and surely had the knowledge and access to drugs that would kill her. Yet repeatedly we carted her off to hospital to have her stomach pumped after another attempt. It kept the whole family on tenterhooks and her needs preempted everyone else’s. I’ve been allergic to suicide threats for half a century now
13 Reasons was a fucked up show that I have to say I unironically enjoyed. The chatter around and ultimate removal of the suicide scene was very interesting (for what it's worth, I think showing how unabashedly horrifying it is to kill yourself might have some value as a deterrent, but most people seemed to disagree with me).
At least on the show I think it telegraphed pretty clearly that the girl who killed herself was fucked up from multiple terrible things happening to her and made a huge mistake. That's how it read to me anyway. I agree with you that holding people hostage by threatening suicide is 100% a form of abuse.
I remember when that show came out it got a lot of criticism for its portrayal of suicide as a “They’re going to feel really terrible about how they treated me when I’m gone!” scenario. Suicide as revenge. Plus the obvious distasteful graphic scenes. Of course, anything based on a YA novel shouldn’t be taken seriously, but…it was irresponsible television from people who should have known better about mental health.
That sounds like a fairly realistic portrayal of suicide. What was irresponsible about it? What can be irresponsible about making art in general? Viewer discretion is advised.
I was in Oklahoma City, I had just come out as trans, I had just started dressing in public. I was awful, I’d wear these fake tits, seriously cringe, I get why people were embarrassed to be seen with me. Just saying that to preface the fact that the friend I was traveling with refused to go to the baseball game with me as we had planned…because I was dressed this way in Oklahoma…he had been with me dressed like this at gay bars, and Eureka Springs…he himself was a gay man…so I went to the baseball game, dressed that way, by myself, in downtown OKC. Nothing happened. A tranny went to the ballgame, the end.
I knew some trans people when I went to college in Oklahoma - mostly older trans women at the time, a lot of veterans, interestingly (big military culture in OK). This was 2010 so the explosion in trans men was a few years out yet and NB people were actually quite rare. They were out and proud but I won’t say they had it easy.
I can say, having been gay in Oklahoma at the time, that while my college town was a great place to come out, I was very careful in smaller towns. It was a deeply, deeply fundamentalist conservative place.
Yeah…older trans women who are vets…you find that a lot in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri…doesn’t surprise me at all.
Also ditto on college towns in that part of the world generally being safe. I’ve never had a problem traveling in the country, or passing through small towns. I didn’t talk to my aunts, uncles, or cousins for ten years after I transitioned. So I hear you on careful, but it’s almost always the devil you know, and almost never problems with strangers, at least in my case.
Yeah, there’s a ton of space between a general vibe of unwelcome-ness and an actual threat to safety. I encountered some real unfriendliness from people and some street harassment in red states (people screeching DYKE out car windows, dirty looks when out with my girlfriend) but never any open hostility from strangers.
I should be clear, the one time it happened it was on a college campus and it was a car full of frat boys leaning out the windows screeching at people generally. At the time I remember finding it crass and annoying, but I didn’t read it as potentially violent and I didn’t feel at all unsafe.
I have felt unsafe, as in “at risk of violence” in other circumstances, but not on account of my appearance/sexuality. I’ve faced personal consequences and genuinely feared professional consequences for being gay, but never feared for my safety.
As I understand there’s still a circuit of batshit crazy traveling preachers who show up on the quad (free speech zone!) from time to time. In my day, rather than a counter protest, the LGBT club would dress up and hold picnics on the lawn to listen to the sermon and call out audience suggestions for topics then applaud wildly the more batshit it got. We had a bingo card and everything!
How was Oklahoma for gay men before AIDS/gay rights? I have the impression that Oklahomans prize individuality and minding-your-own-business, at least until everything got politicized
I was there for a weekend. I’m making the point because Katie said she wouldn’t want to be a non passing trans woman in Oklahoma. Most people in the South/Mid West are very mind your own business as a rule.
Yes I’m from the South and we wouldn’t have known what to do without our gay uncles/cousins in extended families. Who else would remember to check on Great Aunt Millie or drive Grandma to her sewing circle? (Grandma finally turned in her driver’s license and we’ve caught Millie sipping sherry instead of Constant Comment from one of her large teacups. )
…I dunno…Missouri remained in the Union…but it was also a slave state…the conflicts between Missouri and Kansas make Missouri seem like it was in the confederacy even though it wasn’t…could argue it was on the way to joining the confederacy but was prevented by troop involvement.
Call it coaxing, indoctrination, egg cracking, grooming or whatever. It’s shitty and questionable AF when a 50ish year old dude wants tweens and teens to contact him, encourages them to cut off their family and calls himself their real family. I don’t care what it’s called, it’s just not OK.
I once read a YT comment that described Jeffrey Marsh’s voice as “an unwanted hug”
Yes! And the sudden, "OH! Okay so we're hugging now..." type of hug too.
Refusing a hug from a conservative or even just a normie family member is a brave assertion of autonomy and a rejection of the toxic idea that people "owe" other people physical affection. An "Oh! Ok so we're hugging now" hug cannot be rejected as it's inherently revolutionary. A bold act of mutual aid in a capitalist and hetero/cis/fascist hellscape of a country.
There's this activist I used to know and I heard your comment in her voice and damn you nailed it! 😂
Maybe "Oh! Okay so we're hugging now..." is the nb version of "Where's my hug at? :)".
Words cannot express how much I love this comment.
It’s instantly and uncomfortably evocative.
That’s a very good way of putting it.
Why are all these guys middle-aged too? I remember listening to a Nancy Rommelman interview during the Reckoning where she said that most of the people showing up to protests were in their 30s and 40s, not teens. Whatever problems Gen Z has, they’re not the worst offenders.
Agree it is not wanted! But when Brad calls their internet beef a highlight of intersectional struggle, Katie’s “yessss!” is very much wanted. I would be happy with a loop of that audio.
Poor Nex. Not just because a child is dead, but because her death will now forever be used by extremely online people with an agenda and made into something that it wasn’t. She’s forever going to be shorthand for hate crime and reduced to nothing more than a non-binary identity that she very well may have grown out of by high school graduation (because I agree with Brad and Katie here - non-binary is essentially a way of saying, “I’m not a stereotype like everyone else,” and that’s just being a normal teenager). She was more than an identity in life, and now in death she’s a political football.
Agreed. I've unfortunately seen a kind of George Floydification of Nex where a complicated and human individual has this mythical martyr status thrust upon them. It's wild that many Progressives and Liberals see themselves as above mainstream religion but basically adopt the same kind of thinking in these cases complete clearly Christian-esque iconography of the "martyr" in question.
I’ve been preaching this gospel for a few years now! It’s been amazing to watch - I was originally drawn to progressivism because of their strong rationalist grounding but in recent years I’ve seen them basically reinvent the priesthood, the catechism, the Eucharist, and sainted martyrdom. I became a progressive because I thought it was a smart person’s refuge from the faith-based worldviews that I grew to dislike, and now progressives have just assumed all of the same structures with none of the history or grandeur, like Starbucks taking over an historic building.
With an extra side of original sin and need of a savior
I think this comment should be carved onto a clay tablet--so that it may survive after technology fails and we have giant conflagrations that we no longer know how to extinguish. It's critical data for future generations figuring-out what went wrong.
One thing not mentioned in this episode is that Nex’s own mother was apparently given a hard time for using Nex’s birth name. Seriously, this woman just lost her child, who she knew better than probably anybody else on the planet, but the world is fixated on a gender identity that was quite possibly just a teenage phase, and now I guess people are tripping over themselves to lecture about deadnaming to the point where she released a statement:
“We are sorry for not using their name correctly and as parents we were still learning the correct forms. Please do not judge us as Nex was judged, please do not bully us for our ignorance on the subject. Nex gave us that respect and we are sorry in our grief that we overlooked them. I lost my child, the headstone will have correct name of their choice.”
Forget your unimaginable pain right now, how dare you call your child by the name she was known by for most of her life! It’s sickening to see people projecting onto Nex at the expense of the people who actually knew and loved her.
Source: https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/timeline-investigation-into-nex-benedicts-death
There's no evidence that Nex thinks that her parents are bigots that hate her. There's actually a video of Nex talking to a police officer with her mom present they're referring to Nex with She/her pronouns and she was incredibly laid back while also admitting to starting the fight. Nex's death is a true tragedy as it always is when someone so young dies it's pretty gross to see that her death is being exploited in this fashion.
The cult doesn't really care about any of these children, they just see it as an opportunity to spread the gender gospel.
By her own admission (from the text message she sent that Katie read) Nex assaulted the other party first. This first-person witness account carries more weight to me than anything else I've read about this. Of course it's always sad when a young person dies, and all young people don't have the best judgement.
I think we all learned from the Andy Mills episode that nobody deserves to have their life ruined because they poured a cup of water over someone’s head. This is tragic on loads of different levels, but the ultimate point is that stupid teenage mistakes shouldn’t cloud the rest of anybody’s life, yet because of whatever tragic thing happened to cause Nex to suddenly die the next day, she’s lost her life and the other people involved will spend the rest of theirs stigmatized as Those Transphobes Who Killed Her. If their names aren’t already out there, then they will be soon, and…well, with the state of college campuses today, would you want to be the admissions officer who welcomes them to your institution? You’re going to have protests from students saying they feel unsafe sharing a university with transphobic murderers. (This is assuming there are no criminal charges.) Their best bet is to change their names and move to another state.
Adolescence is a time when you’re supposed to screw up and learn and grow and then eventually put your past behind you. But the internet making everything permanent, combined with what appears to be a terrible twist of fate in Nex dying, means a lot of people’s lives are ruined here.
Or she died of an unrelated cause. Or she had a brain aneurysm that could have been triggered by anything--every year there are a few sudden deaths of seemingly healthy young people after a roller coaster ride, or a basketball game, or a brisk jog, etc. Until there's a medical report made public, we don't know.
All we know now is that she (somehow) hit her head, and was checked out in a hostpital and released, and told to be careful if there are any symtoms of concussion.
After all the dancing in the streets on October 7th, I never want to hear the fucking words "stochastic terrorism" come out of a leftist's mouth ever again.
Genuinely trying to understand what one of these things has to do with the other. It's not like Hamas put out some kind of press release saying "we told our people not to commit terrorism, but those damn TikTokers kept telling them to!"
Like, that wasn't stochastic terrorism, it was just terrorism. Of the non-stochastic variety. Which obviously exists, or you wouldn't need the adjective.
Right. So I don’t want to hear a lecture from people who celebrate actual terrorism about how their ideological opponents are allegedly encouraging others to commit terrorism.
Okay. What about a leftist like me, who does not celebrate non-stochastic (I note, and reject, your insinuation that stochastic terrorism is not "actual") terrorism? It was immediately obvious to me that the Hamas attacks were indefensible even if one assumes a chauvinistically pro-Palestinian viewpoint, because they were going to get a ton of Palestinians killed in reprisal.
Am I bound to the opinions of a handful of myopic nutcases?
What about you? You’re just like a Republican who doesn’t support Trump or a Palestinian who doesn’t support Hamas.
Irrelevant.
My position is functionally the same as the position of the current Democratic President of the United States. (I would be a little more aggressive at cutting off funding to Israel, since we don't need to be footing the bill for their war, but I'm not out there demanding that the US do something crazy to end it.)
To claim that that is "irrelevant" compared to the opinions of a handful of attention-whoring faux radicals on social media is... I don't even know how to describe it. "Totally absented from reality" might come close.
Your position puts you outside that of the mainstream left and therefore outside the scope of this conversation. Thank you for the contribution though!
The tragic death of Nex reminds me of Brianna Ghey's death - used as "proof" of rampant transphobia in the UK when it turns out the killers had picked multiple victims who weren't trans and eventually settled on Ghey out of chance/convenience.
I think it's interesting that Ghey's mother has decided to advocate for regulations around social media and phones for teens rather than go down the trans rights advocacy path.
https://news.sky.com/story/brianna-gheys-mum-says-mobile-phones-should-be-made-specifically-for-children-under-16-to-protect-them-from-online-harms-13072291
What the mother is asking for makes no sense: "Ms Ghey also believes Brianna would still be alive if her teenage killers had been unable to access violent content on both the dark web and the regular internet as they plotted the murder.... I would like to see mobile phone companies, tech companies take more responsibility for children's welfare... I'd like to see mobile phones specifically made for under 16s where they can't access social media sites in the first place."
AFAIK the killers didn't identify Brianna through social media, they knew her from school. One of the killers supposedly watched violent videos via Tor (ie NOT social media) and was fascinated with serial killers which you can learn all about in the library or on Netflix. So regulating 'tech giants' would not have prevented this, even if we accept the probably false claim that watching violent videos makes you a violent psycho rather than psychos tending to seek out violent videos (along with a lot of other people who don't end up murdering anyone).
Maybe under 16s should have phones that are filtered to prevent them seeing violent content and lets their parents monitor their browsing. A responsible tech-literate parent can set that up already, but if you haven't noticed your 15 year old daughter is a murderous psycho you're probably not responsible enough to do that, but then you're also probably not going to notice if she acquires an unfiltered prepay phone or some other workaround.
Also funny that 'Asked whether she believes there should be a ban on mobile phones in schools, Ms Ghey said it would be too difficult to enforce and there are "already so many pressures on teachers".' That would actually be a good policy, not to prevent rare murders but just to avoid distracting kids, and has to be workable because some schools do it.
Women in the UK are killed every 2 days or so. Brianna was the second trans murder (as in a murdered trans identifying person, not the motive) here since 2018. They don't care about the tragic loss of life involved, they don't care about the growing number of young people turning to extreme violence, they just care that the cult keeps growing and noone dares question a thing.
"Women in the UK are killed every 2 days or so." This makes it sound like every woman in the UK is killed every 2 days. A better way to put that statistic is that about 200 women are killed a year in the UK, which is a low homicide rate for a country of 70 million people.
It's like 11 per million per year and 70% of victims are men.
Also I'm not sure there's evidence of "a growing number of young people turning to extreme violence", the UK homicide rate is pretty flat or declining: https://www.murdermap.co.uk/statistics/homicide-england-wales-statistics-historical/
For further context, there are about 4000 women murdered in the US per year, or around 10 per day. The US obviously has nowhere even close to 20 times the UK's population (more like 5 times), so that's a staggeringly higher murder rate here, in the neighborhood of 400 percent of the UK's.
In general the US tolerates murder rates that in any normal developed country would immediately result in confiscation of all guns and probably martial law. Instead, we blame it on trans women in bathrooms. Go us.
If only those transwomen would throw up their hands and acknowledge they are just biological Men, Women wouldn't need to make issues like bathrooms such a big deal. Since those Men refuse to identify as anything other than Women, Just Literally Women, the issue isn't going to go away. Since transwomen commit the same crimes as every other group of Men on Earth, the issue is relevant. Just one violent male rapist identifying as a Woman is enough to cause the alarm bells to ring. Its those Men and those of you who refuse to see them as Men who have destroyed decades of good faith and activism. Maybe the trans community should stop enabling these Men and start telling them to fuck off and leave Women alone. THEN you can complain about it.
"If only those transwomen would throw up their hands and acknowledge they are just biological Men, Women wouldn't need to make issues like bathrooms such a big deal."
Really? So if a trans woman said "I am a biological man who needs to use the women's restroom for safety reasons," you would be totally okay with that? No, I don't think so. So it's not, in fact, the "acknowledgement" that you want; it's that you want to literally treat trans women as men in all respects. Even when they are obviously distinguishable.
"Since transwomen commit the same crimes as every other group of Men on Earth,"
[citation needed]
"Just one violent male rapist identifying as a Woman is enough to cause the alarm bells to ring."
Just one Jew drinking the blood of a Christian child ought to do the same! All conspiracy theories are valid if there is literally even one example that can be summoned forth!
"destroyed decades of good faith and activism"
Oh yeah, you were TOTALLY going to support trans rights until they went and... asked for rights. Totally. Look what they made you do. Very believable stuff from "itsacult."
TW are Men, full stop. There is no alternative universe where they are actually Literally Women, and its the Men who know they don't pass who still enter single sex spaces that are the issue. Passing TW will pass and noone will know, as has always been the case. Those people however are extremely rare, no matter how much your cult wants to pretend that trans identifying people pass in most situations, because they dont. Thats their problem, and you trying to force them into Womens spaces is on you and whatever is left of your cult influenced conscience.
TW do indeed commit the same crimes as every other group of Men.
TW have raped and sexually assaulted: https://transcrimeuk.com/category/sexual-offences/
TW have committed acts of violence: https://transcrimeuk.com/category/violent-offences/
All of those people who take on a trans identity are Men with a trans identity. It doesn't matter if they're fabricating that identity or if they truely believe their gender souls are different from their sexed meatsacks. They are Men using the trans identity to access vulnerable people, commit crimes and harm society. Those same Men YOU want to wave into Womens spaces unquestioned.
I lived with a TW throughout part of the pandemic and we got on great. He cofounded a local trans resource centre and worked primarily with young people, health groups, schools an law orgs. Since then I've discovered that Man was removed from his position at that trans resource centre due to inappropriate behaviour towards youth clientelle. You can wank into oblivion about TW being this untouchable, unquestionable, 100% pure and loving community of Special Women, but most of us know that isn't the case and we are actively working to ensure this cult can do no more harm
I don't give a shit how someone identifies, I give a shit about the people using those identities to harm people. I give a shit about the people who actively enable that. I'm going to leave it here because you're delusional and I made a point of disengaging with delusional assholes when I left the TQ+.
Have a nice day, get therapy, tranwomen are men, transmen are women and nonbinary still doesn't exist, cis.
That was at least a straightforward murder case in which we know the cause of death, this is far more cynical, we don't know how Nex died and the 'attack' was a typical schoolyard fight.
It's disappointing that Katie and Jessie consistently misunderstand and misrepresent the concept of grooming and how it relates to predatory behaviour. Sure it may be a term that's thrown around too much but Marsh's conduct definitely counts. It doesn't have to involve a direct attempt at access, any attempt to bypass normal safeguarding procedures, both personal and societal, absolutely is grooming, even if it's done with the best of intentions.
Jessie and Katie are routinely dismissive about non-passing transwomen in women’s bathrooms. The problem is that in the past, if an apparent male went into a woman’s room, the staff could help eject him. Now, at best they’ll do nothing. So bathroom rights make it OK for any man to enter a woman’s space, just as Marsh’s behavior clears the way for actual predators
Everyone pretends they don’t understand this. It baffles me.
... it literally doesn't happen. Show me evidence that this actually happens on more than a nutpicking level.
It's incredibly ironic that this discussion is occurring on a thread of a podcast episode specifically complaining about blowing incredibly rare isolated incidents out of proportion.
Women deserve to feel safe in a public bathroom.
They cannot feel safe when they know there are bio men in the bathroom with them.
End of story.
Well…. #NotNotAllMen … but the kind of men with whom we *would* feel safe in a public women’s room are the ones least likely to use a public woman’s room
Sex separated restrooms make them comfortable to use. The presence of other people is what makes them safe. The only bathroom assault I’m familiar with in my area was at a quiet rest stop where the man just hid in the woman’s room without trying to look like a woman
Yeah, the idea that there's this rash of men going around representing themselves to be trans women and then somehow exploiting that to assault people has to be one of the dumbest blood libels I've ever heard. Absolutely made up slander.
What makes it particularly idiotic is that it's a complete misunderstanding of the law. Businesses can kick women out of women's restrooms if they think they are creepy, and it does not matter whether the woman in question is cis or trans. Remember "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? The only thing that you can't do in trans-supportive states is kick someone out SPECIFICALLY FOR BEING TRANS. Perish the thought of not being able to intentionally discriminate against someone!
In an above comment you acknowledge how often women are murdered by men. That men commit violent crimes far more than 10:1 compared to women is a stat that has remained robust over the history of civilization. But this is not just murder and physical assault, but even more frequently it includes sexual assault (including exposing oneself, etc.). This happens far, far more than murder. Most of the time it does not even get reported. (I have had strange men expose themselves to me, put their hands on me on buses or subways, etc, and I don't report those things because they are so common and fleeting.)
When men want to commit these acts, they go out of their way to do it. They do what they have to do to achieve their goals. Knowing all of this, why would you imagine that men being in women's private spaces would not be a problem? That there would not be men who exploit the ability to do this by deciding to be trans? That this would not put women in danger? And yes, there have been reported cases of this, including men pretending to be trans who get into women's prisons and then rape female prisoners. Again, many, many women have been assaulted, molested, groped, flashed, and harassed by men. It is pretty much ubiquitous. How can you not be sympathetic to our wanting our privacy boundaries to remain secure?
I'm sorry that men are always suspect of this, even when the majority would never commit these acts, and even when they identify as trans and would not commit these acts. We all wish this were not so. Obviously. We'd like to live in peace and not feel like we are in constant danger. We'd like there to be no reason for boundaries. But we biological females are not the ones creating the issue. We are just trying to protect ourselves from it. (No idea if you are male or female but just representing the women who agree with me.)
Let me also add that every time I've been groped it was on a bus in a shitty neighborhood or overnight train, or flashed in a not-great area of the city, or in some other situation that generally occurs to the not-rich. Thus: prisons, shelters, etc. I think imagining women and girls are safe from predation is a "luxury belief," as Rob Henderson has put it. No offense, but I think it's something to consider.
"Knowing all of this, why would you imagine that men being in women's private spaces would not be a problem?"
Because it doesn't happen.
"That there would not be men who exploit the ability to do this by deciding to be trans?"
It doesn't happen.
"And yes, there have been reported cases of this, including men pretending to be trans who get into women's prisons and then rape female prisoners."
I dunno about you, but I've never stopped off at the local women's prison and asked to use the bathroom. That, too, does not happen.
Now, I have no doubt that there have, in fact, been cis men who have faked being trans in an attempt to get admitted to women's prisons, although the motives for doing so are complex and may be as much about trying to avoid male prisoners as they are about trying to gain access to female ones. No matter. The point here is that a prison is a guarded long-term residency where it is actually practical to both heavily regulate who has access and to evaluate whether such access is appropriate based on factual evidence (and, I would add, such regulation is practical precisely because a prison is NOT private; it's a completely totalitarian controlled environment). A bathroom is something that people wander freely into and out of in 60 seconds. There are no "bathroom guards" checking who gets in and out; the very idea is ridiculous and fascistic.
As Jules from Pulp Fiction would say, these aren't in the same ballpark, they aren't the same league, hell they aren't even the same fuckin' sport. You can't just handwave the incredibly obvious differences between them by calling them "women's private spaces."
The short answer is that I can not be sympathetic to fake claims of danger because those claims are fake. I'm not sympathetic to Christians claiming Jews drank the blood of their children--not because it wouldn't be a bad thing if that happened, but because it never happened and the claims that it did were a pack of intentionally defamatory lies. So it is here.
There's no fewer than 1000% more genderless/unisex restrooms now than in say 2018. This dead horse needs a burial or glue factory.
I totally agree. Grooming describes the behavior, not the "molestation" outcome, and it is a very useful word for someone who is luring kids in an insidious way. And yes, Marsh is grooming kids into his cult in exactly, precisely the same way a pedophile grooms kids into being comfortable with crossing boundaries and participating in what they may have formerly considered to be abhorrent behaviors. Getting kids used to adults crossing boundaries by acting like their friend/family member/supporter so that they may influence their thinking, all with predatory intentions, is the act of grooming a child, no matter the outcome. Again: It's simply a useful word for this singular type of behavior.
Suzen - thank you so much for this. A lot of things just fell into place.
I had a highschool teacher who would ask me to stay after class because he wanted to discuss a my assignments. I was an incredibly shy and awkward girl and was delighted that he saw that I was really special deep down. At first he called me talented and then it went onto “you know you’re beautiful when you smile” type of thing. Nothing happened but I both craved and feared those after class talks.
He lost interest in me suddenly and moved on. It was devastating but I dodged a bullet because he was later fired for I think kissing another girl or worse.
Nothing has to actually physically happen for this type of grooming or whatever behaviour to impact you. It feels like someone finally sees your inner core when you are so desperate for it to be seen… but it’s scary, disorienting and overwhelming. Your heart knows it’s unsafe even though it feels good and, on a deep level that doesn’t come out immediately, you lose a bit of trust in yourself and others.
The comment in another post saying Marsh is like an unwanted hug is both hilarious and sadly very true.
Yes, that's exactly the process. The adult slowly and carefully crosses boundaries, creates intimacy, makes the child feel good, makes them feel supported or loved or admired, and of course this is done one-on-one with no one else aware of it. Often, as it intensifies, they try to isolate the child, keep their relationship a secret, place a wedge between the child and those who might protect them. They usually try to acclimate the child to their desires, like hugging and touching in seemingly innocent ways, or acclimating them to ideas and normalizing things the child might instinctually find wrong. That's the process.
I'm so sorry you went through that and glad it did not go too far. I've had it happen to me also, natch! It's so common that kids need to be aware of how it works. And it's why teachers, in general, should be carerful about being overly friendly with children, even if it's innocent. There needs to be professionalism for these very reasons, just as you would not act certain ways with bosses or other colleagues. Teachers who act like "friends" with their students and introduce them to their personal lives, etc., are not acting professionally and in a way that protects the children. There should be a respectful distance.
And Jeffrey Marsh, if nothing else, is acclimating kids to being groomed as he attempts to lure them into his lifestyle. Children need to learn that this kind of behavior is a red flag. (And child abuse is so common, there is no reason to think that Marsh is not capable of it. He certainly has the methods down pat. It's a terrible thing to suggest, but come on...)
Oh wow. You totally get it. I’m sorry this happened to you too but thank you for sharing. I never quite understood what was making me uncomfortable and now I do. Your comment summed it up.
Great reply! Thank you.
Perfectly stated!
Deleting my comment because I feel like I’ve been overly judgmental and I’m a coward.
This is a really good point about how pathetic he is. If you are a Christian, say a prayer for him.
Thank you! Jeffrey Marsh doesn’t appear to be a pedophile but he’s certainly doing some serious legwork to help them out.
How would a child be able to know the difference btwn a “nice” stranger on the internet who encourages sexuality related conversations with adults and isolation from your family and one who intends to do harm? The point is that the behavior itself is inappropriate, regardless of intent, and puts children at risk.
I've cut ties with acquaintances over this kind of boundary-pushing behavior, not because I thought they were bad or dangerous people, but because I thought it set a bad precedent.
Maybe I'm just young but the ideological grooming or creepy behavior/overstepping bounds is what always pops into my head when I hear grooming. I actually learned about the real definition here. For someone who is an actual criminal I say they are a child predator or molester.
It's worth noting that groomer is being used all the time now for even people who are in their early 20's talking to teenagers. Sometimes even sending flirty texts to someone with a 2 year age difference still gets you into trouble. There is tons of youtube drama where underage fans accuse their stars of grooming even though nothing sexual took place at all (example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH5KjQWLjt4). Younger generations I don't think even care what the word used to mean.
The term now has a range of different meanings.
Agreed. They're seeking a different kind of gratification. Complete pied piper syndrome. They want kids to see them as a guru and follow them. I've known teachers with this complex and while not as horrible as actual, big G grooming, the potential for harm is not trivial.
I agree grooming encompasses a lot of actions and i would add there is even a benign form of grooming. You can groom people towards lots of purposes and I would argue that if you are in a mentoring role (teachers) you are probably practicing some form grooming. Generally it is towards a positive end. The issue with the general groomer discourse is that it implies that any discussion of gender and sexuality with minors is inherently grooming kids to pursue those identities(or worse), especially if the discussion is led by a gay or Trans person. I find this wrong. I agree I don't think teachers should be influencing childern to adopt these identities, but certainly these identities should be represented in sex education. There is a lot of daylight between discussing these topics and grooming kids towards these identities. Most of the discussion surrounding lgbt grooming in schools comes across inflationary and bigoted to me. However, I do think there is probably a concerning level of inappropriate grooming happening online that targets kids exploring their sexuality and gender. The guy they discussed in podcast at least causes me to raise an eyebrow and if I had kids I would probably not let them watch him.
My fear with the groomer discourse is that it has become far too regressive and is going to lead to schools shying away from any discussion of these topics.
I think I'd broadly agree and you certainly highlight the problem with the all-or-nothing approach that we see in public discourse today. What's appropriate should be a matter of policy and not for individual educators and certainly not people like Marsh to decide.
They don’t have kids. I remember I didn’t take this stuff seriously before I had kids. Same with men in women’s bathrooms.
Few people creep me out more than Jeffrey Marsh. His extreme close-ups, macabre grins, and telling strangers they're his 'family now', inviting minors to contact him. If any less colorfully attired male did this, they'd be toast.
Oh he’s THAT guy. Soooooooo creepy
The ring light does not help with the creepiness factor.
Ha! SO true.
So weird he's like the creepy clowns that many people are scared of.
I’m still listening, but I can’t help but feel that if we had responsible journalists report on the stories and issues that LOTT covers that maybe we could have more civil discourse, cool the extreme responses, and appropriately address real issues. Chaya is not a journalist yet LOTT is hugely popular. Why? The actual media denies, ignores, distracts and gaslights while criminals, deviants, and opportunists run for cover. LOTT gets it wrong at times and the tactics are far from ideal in some cases, but where else can people go?
Unfortunately, anyone who mentions some of the issues that are covered (or posted) by LOTT are dismissed as transphobes, bigots, racists, alt right, MAGA. While people may not agree with the approach, we can’t ignore that the content that’s posted is at times disturbing no matter where you are on the political spectrum.
But, we’re stuck because no one in legacy media pays attention to anything LOTT posts (except to denigrate and blame it) and they refuse to cover legit issues because they don’t want to be labeled.
I think this is a really good point. Another poster mentioned in the open thread that they often have to go to the Daily Mail for pictures associated with news stories when other news sources refuse to post them (in this case, it was an antisemitic drawing posted by a Harvard faculty group).
In the same way, I often find myself going to local conservative news sources of questionable credibility just to access some information to help me go off and start my own research. I would much prefer credible, vetted reporting that didn't have a political tilt to it, but find that is less and less valued these days.
Jeez, I identify. I still can't believe I first go to the NY Post to find out what is happening in NYC. NYT seems to concentrate its metro coverage on which restaurants are progressively cool and what a SJW does on they/them's weekend.
My problem with LOTT from what I’ve seen is that she’s no longer content to let a retweet speak for itself - she’s (mis) characterizing them in inflammatory ways
Obliquely related: I’ve always found it interesting how trans people and other groups make a huge fuss insisting people acknowledge that they "exist". (Presumably having an audience is an essential ingredient in autogynephilia.) Then Libs of TikTok comes along and just literally reposts their voluntary public behavior - essentially doing nothing more than acknowledging their existence - and people get mad.
It’s very strange. Libs of TikTok doesn’t do anything beyond draw attention to things people say and do openly and it causes anger…but all they’re doing is shining a light on the brain-breaking effects of social media. It’s like showing a bunch of medical students pictures of a liver ravaged by cirrhosis from alcohol abuse and having them get angry at the instructor rather than curious about the etiology of the symptoms.
That was Brad's point, too. If all Libs of TikTok did was repost TikTok videos that people wanted to reach an audience with, I'd have no complaints. She does bother me a bit when she falls for hoaxes, urban legends, or picks on non-public gay or otherwise eccentric people who weren't making content for public consumption.
“ presumably having an audience…”
Really interested to know if anyone has any credible evidence for this, as at this stage, it has just joined the stock response about AGP being spat out by dodgy Twitter accounts.
It could well be the case, but I’m not just accepting the word of @TerfUltra666.
Unless that’s the burner account of Ray Blanchard, then I’d say that those ideas aren’t necessarily originating on twitter but are either coevolving or being echoed by people familiar with his work (or related work by Freund and Bailey). We’re talking about social science so hard and fast evidence will generally be lacking but there’s scholarship on behavioral AGP as one of the core typologies. Believe him or not, and again being social science there’s always going to be a healthy debate, but “AGP needs an audience” is an idea that exists and we need to “acknowledge” it.
Assume you already knew that though and were just asking a tendentious question.
Anecdotally, the selfies posted from women’s rooms by middle-aged biological men in girly-girl attire supports the hypothesis of AGP’s needing an audience. FWIW I’d be much more sympathetic were I to see selfies of transwomen washing dishes, vacuuming the house, folding laundry, etc. Now THAT would be sexy
I’m asking for links or references to that scholarship. Acknowledging that an idea exist doesn’t mean we have to accept that it is true.
I just gave you the names of three scholars as a starting point. I’m not Siri so I don’t do web searches on demand; if your Google subscription ran out find a friend’s to borrow and research this yourself, or apply for a library card. Do that and we can continue discussing the topic; otherwise please stop clogging my feed with concern trolling.
Come on man, you gotta do your own homework here. A lot of people here are really knowledgeable about this subject and know it very well.
Assuming what you want is actual reputable scholarship, and not @TerfUltra666's tendentious characterization of same, I recommend Kay Brown's blog:
sillyolme.wordpress.com
It's chockablock with links to (and summaries of) research on the etiology of transition. There does seem to be a two-peak distribution when it comes to transition, with late-in-life transitioners being much, much more likely to associate it with erotic feelings as opposed to revulsion at having the "wrong" body parts. She is, however, strongly supportive of everyone living their best lives whether or not that involves transition, and regardless of the motives for pursuing it.
I think Libs of tiktok is essentially the same thing as what Rightwingwatch and Media matters do. Expose the other political side's rhetoric that is supposed to be inside-baseball to your side to mock it and also learn what they're up to. Of course the distinguishing factor here is that Libs of tiktok's targets are usually not radio-hosts or televangelists but teachers, therapists and doctors whose careers don't revolve around politics.
I think there’s a type of person whose life revolves around politics even if their job doesn’t necessarily. I’ve been fortunate enough to insinuate myself into both subcultures and there are sports fans (that is, “that other team is a bunch of evildoers and our team hasn’t committed a foul in the history of the franchise” types) on all sides. It’s useful to have an historical record of how many people, regardless of profession, go around voluntarily and publicly expressing execrable ideas while thinking they’re the good guys. I’d like to think it helps those who are inclined to be in-group critics to speak up.
Ok. I have to share this experience apropos of today’s episode.
When our kids were toddlers we were looking for a nanny. On one of the sites a man came up. My wife and I discussed them as a candidate. I work with kids in volunteer and other capacities so the topic of the bias against men in non traditional roles was not a foreign topic.
My wife said from bias or not she got bad vibes. I commented that as a parent we ought to always go with our gut. Even if it’s based on prejudice. Because at the end of the day if you go against your gut and you were right, you’ll never forgive yourself. But if you’re wrong you just passed on someone who, realistically, is probably no better or worse than the next.
Well. Probably not hard to see where this is going….but….
About 6 weeks later the local paper ran a story about a male nanny busted using their job to film kiddie porn. Of the worst kind. Got caught on a nanny cam and the search turned up…. a lot.
Some prejudices exist for a reason. And the cost of proving your open mindedness and being wrong is too goddamn high.
*edit*
In case it’s not clear. Yes. It was the exact same person.
Gut feelings reveal a lot. Almost 15 years ago, I got a bad feeling about a Cub Scout leader. I was at his house dropping something off and I just had a sense that it would be safer to leave, pronto. I practically fell down his front steps backing out of the doorway.
I told my husband we needed to switch our son to a different pack. He asked why. I said that I thought “Joe” struck me as a guy with bodies buried in his basement or who skinned Dalmatians for funsies. I acknowledged that “I was probably being ridiculous”, but Joe would never be around our son.
A couple years later, we saw Joe in the paper…child sexual abuse.
That’s not the only example of my gut serving me very well.
When I was a tween I rarely saw my uncle who lived over seas. When I did see him he made me extremely uncomfortable. I had never felt like that before and I couldn't tell you a single thing he did different to my many other male relatives. He wasn't the only male relative I only saw occasionally but he was the only one who made me feel like that.
I didn't see him for about 6 years between being 12ish to 18ish. When I saw him as an adult the discomfort was gone.
That's it. The end of the story. There was no vindication. Maybe it was nothing. Whenever people talk about vibes I always think of that uncle and wonder.
When people talk about vibes, all I can think about is confirmation bias. We never think about all those people we had bad vibes about who turned out to be benign people. We only ever think of the hits. There are a lot of good men out there who are treated poorly or neglected because they don't have the right facial expressions or physical mannerisms that have the unwritten, unspoken approval of the general public, especially women.
It's the internet, so I can just say it:
I'll happily treat 50 men poorly (defined as not giving them a job if I get bad vibes) if it keeps the one man who would hurt my kids from ever being near them. In fact, I'm tempted to side with my wife and just take a hard pass on men that apply for baby sitting, nanny, or similar jobs by default.
However, considering in 10 years I've only ever once a) had to consider a man for a job that involved children and b) got bad vibes and took a pass.....I'm currently batting 1000 and there's no room for confirmation bias since it really just doesn't happen that much.
Maybe. It's the only time its every happened to me and I never told anyone (nothing to tell) I just avoided him which, if there was nothing to worry about, would effect him not even a little bit.
The second part of your post is really hyperbolic. There area lot of good *people* out there who are treated poorly for a myriad of reasons beyond their control by both women and men. Being ugly, fat or having a physical deformity would far more people than "vibes" by any metric.
First off - I’m very happy to hear you avoided getting caught up in this. That would have been traumatizing for everyone involved.
Second, I’m a stats person and it’s been a slow process to warm up to the idea of trusting gut feelings…but it’s amazing how often they’re right, too. I’ve started to accept that maybe evolutionarily there was a benefit to being able to assess microscopic tells and tics that let you know “hey, this guy’s no good” and the ones who had that trait survived more often to pass down their genes.
Sam Harris often likes to point out that the majority of our thought processes are unconscious. There's ample evidence that many decisions are made prior to any conscious thought. The "reason" for performing the action coming post hoc and is layered onto the behavior so it makes sense to us.
I think "gut feelings" are an awareness of the unconscious prat of our decision making prior to layering on the rationale.
It blows my mind that a subset of men have preyed on children for as long as humanity has existed, yet we *still* have to argue why it makes sense to be suspicious of men who seek to be alone with children.
Yeah, not all men are pedos. But the vast majority of pedos are men.
Like I said above. You can be wrong 10 times and right once. But if you ignore your gut.....the outcome is still unacceptable.
And you can totally avoid it with a very ridiculously simply heuristic: don't hire men to baby sit your kids.
It's the seatbelt of child care. Doesn't matter most people go their entire lives and are never in a life threatening accident. Just put the seat belt on. It's simple. Low effort and not inconvenient at all. It'll save you if you need it.
“The seatbelt of childcare” — absolutely! Thank you for that. Excellent metaphor.
What puzzles me about Jeffrey Marsh is that anyone would take him seriously. He is profoundly creepy and physically distasteful. He comes across as the Mouth of Sauron.
I don’t know much about Patreon, but do his hundreds of thousands of TikTok followers translate into much money? Are people actually taking the action of paying to talk to him, and do we have an idea of how many? I can’t imagine young people view him as particularly aspirational - being a near-50-year-old on the Internet and all. His behavior is inappropriate even if no minor actually chats with him, I’m just curious whether kids actually are doing this.
Good question. Reasonably normal young people find him repulsive, I am sure, but maybe there are some desperately lonely and confused kids who find something in him. But it could all be delusion on his part.
Thousands of women are killed (homicides) every single year in the United States. A significant number of those are committed by their male partners, and obviously the vast majority are committed by males.
Surely these are acts of hate.
It’s about time we shine a light of reality on actual harm that is carried out, too regularly, against women.
When I really think about it, it’s pretty disgusting that coffee shops hang “Black Trans Lives Matter” signs, when women are killed far more often by partners and strangers. . . . Am I the only one who listens to Dateline?
I remember my partner had a dept zoom meeting on racism the day after the Atlanta spa shootings. It wasn’t even 24 hours and the dept chair started the meeting talking about the shooting and assuming it was an anti-Asian hate crime. I used to live in Fayetteville, NC (outside Fort Liberty aka Fort Bragg) so I know there are a lot of Asian massage parlours. But even without knowing anything about the shooter’s motives, it seemed racist to assume that someone wanting to shoot Asians is automatically gonna head for a massage parlor. Especially when there’s a category of individuals already associated with massage paroles and that’s women.
Grr, I get angry all over again reading your comment. Yeah, it was a hate crime -- an anti-woman hate crime. The entire media refused to cover it that way.
It’s infuriating
I mean the actual story turned out to be that he regularly used the services of those parlours but was a religious nut and felt guilty about it and blamed the women for 'tempting' him, so really they weren't targetted primarily for being Asian or for being women, but for being sex workers.
Exactly! But I still hear that shooting described as an anti-Asian hate crime
Guilty guilty guilty of watching Dateline and even listening to a Date of Dateline. I know, Do <<clap>>, Better <<clap>>
My family and I have weekly Dateline watch parties. I also listen to A Date With Dateline!
A few years ago, Netflix produced a controversial show called 13 Reasons Why. The premise of the show was that a teenage girl committed suicide and sent out letters to people explaining the 13 reasons why she did - her various grievances against named people in her life, some very legitimate, others much less so. While she took her own life, she blamed her death on all of those other people.
I think that some people see death or catastrophe as a way to teach others a lesson and/or want their perceived or actual tormentors to be labelled as killers in order to avenge their suffering. In death, they can be martyrs, and the people who are blamed, whether directly responsible or not, are villains. Unfortunately, that’s a powerful rhetorical tool.
I see the trans genocide rhetoric or the immediate assumption that crimes against certain people are hate crimes as somewhat paralleling the girl in 13 Reasons Why. They want to be martyrs so that they can show their opponents (genuine or perceived) to be evil and bloodthirsty and to force them to reckon with themselves. It’s a terrible impulse, and threatening suicide if other people don’t give you what you want is considered a form of abuse. Nevertheless, within certain ideologies, weaponizing death is tacitly or sometimes explicitly encouraged because of the ways that it can be used against the other side.
A woman I know well was in a relationship with a man who manipulated her with threats of suicide into not leaving him - for years. I think of that relationship every time I hear dead son /live daughter rhetoric. It is deeply ugly to use threats of suicide to control others. Or to use suicide as a way to hurt another person.
TMI but my late mother, may she rest in peace, was a physician and surely had the knowledge and access to drugs that would kill her. Yet repeatedly we carted her off to hospital to have her stomach pumped after another attempt. It kept the whole family on tenterhooks and her needs preempted everyone else’s. I’ve been allergic to suicide threats for half a century now
❤️❤️❤️
13 Reasons was a fucked up show that I have to say I unironically enjoyed. The chatter around and ultimate removal of the suicide scene was very interesting (for what it's worth, I think showing how unabashedly horrifying it is to kill yourself might have some value as a deterrent, but most people seemed to disagree with me).
At least on the show I think it telegraphed pretty clearly that the girl who killed herself was fucked up from multiple terrible things happening to her and made a huge mistake. That's how it read to me anyway. I agree with you that holding people hostage by threatening suicide is 100% a form of abuse.
I remember when that show came out it got a lot of criticism for its portrayal of suicide as a “They’re going to feel really terrible about how they treated me when I’m gone!” scenario. Suicide as revenge. Plus the obvious distasteful graphic scenes. Of course, anything based on a YA novel shouldn’t be taken seriously, but…it was irresponsible television from people who should have known better about mental health.
That sounds like a fairly realistic portrayal of suicide. What was irresponsible about it? What can be irresponsible about making art in general? Viewer discretion is advised.
I was in Oklahoma City, I had just come out as trans, I had just started dressing in public. I was awful, I’d wear these fake tits, seriously cringe, I get why people were embarrassed to be seen with me. Just saying that to preface the fact that the friend I was traveling with refused to go to the baseball game with me as we had planned…because I was dressed this way in Oklahoma…he had been with me dressed like this at gay bars, and Eureka Springs…he himself was a gay man…so I went to the baseball game, dressed that way, by myself, in downtown OKC. Nothing happened. A tranny went to the ballgame, the end.
“A tranny went to the ballgame, the end” would be a great title for a memoir.
I like “OUT: to the ball game, a memoir of an unremarkable evening”
Take Me Out Of The Balls Game
I knew some trans people when I went to college in Oklahoma - mostly older trans women at the time, a lot of veterans, interestingly (big military culture in OK). This was 2010 so the explosion in trans men was a few years out yet and NB people were actually quite rare. They were out and proud but I won’t say they had it easy.
I can say, having been gay in Oklahoma at the time, that while my college town was a great place to come out, I was very careful in smaller towns. It was a deeply, deeply fundamentalist conservative place.
Yeah…older trans women who are vets…you find that a lot in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri…doesn’t surprise me at all.
Also ditto on college towns in that part of the world generally being safe. I’ve never had a problem traveling in the country, or passing through small towns. I didn’t talk to my aunts, uncles, or cousins for ten years after I transitioned. So I hear you on careful, but it’s almost always the devil you know, and almost never problems with strangers, at least in my case.
Yeah, there’s a ton of space between a general vibe of unwelcome-ness and an actual threat to safety. I encountered some real unfriendliness from people and some street harassment in red states (people screeching DYKE out car windows, dirty looks when out with my girlfriend) but never any open hostility from strangers.
You don't consider someone screaming "DYKE" at you from a car "open hostility"?
It seems quite hostile to me!
I should be clear, the one time it happened it was on a college campus and it was a car full of frat boys leaning out the windows screeching at people generally. At the time I remember finding it crass and annoying, but I didn’t read it as potentially violent and I didn’t feel at all unsafe.
I have felt unsafe, as in “at risk of violence” in other circumstances, but not on account of my appearance/sexuality. I’ve faced personal consequences and genuinely feared professional consequences for being gay, but never feared for my safety.
Yeah, anecdotally there’s quite a number of trans or cross dressing military men in my experience.
When I was at the University of Oklahoma 20 years ago for an event, the only graffiti I saw on campus was about Jesus - in a good way.
As I understand there’s still a circuit of batshit crazy traveling preachers who show up on the quad (free speech zone!) from time to time. In my day, rather than a counter protest, the LGBT club would dress up and hold picnics on the lawn to listen to the sermon and call out audience suggestions for topics then applaud wildly the more batshit it got. We had a bingo card and everything!
How was Oklahoma for gay men before AIDS/gay rights? I have the impression that Oklahomans prize individuality and minding-your-own-business, at least until everything got politicized
I was there for a weekend. I’m making the point because Katie said she wouldn’t want to be a non passing trans woman in Oklahoma. Most people in the South/Mid West are very mind your own business as a rule.
Yes I’m from the South and we wouldn’t have known what to do without our gay uncles/cousins in extended families. Who else would remember to check on Great Aunt Millie or drive Grandma to her sewing circle? (Grandma finally turned in her driver’s license and we’ve caught Millie sipping sherry instead of Constant Comment from one of her large teacups. )
You said Josh Hawley? I know which state that is…😏
Deeply depressing to this Civil War buff to see people describing Missouri as "the South." I'm starting to see where Abe Simpson was coming from.
…I dunno…Missouri remained in the Union…but it was also a slave state…the conflicts between Missouri and Kansas make Missouri seem like it was in the confederacy even though it wasn’t…could argue it was on the way to joining the confederacy but was prevented by troop involvement.
Pretty much all I know about Oklahoma and gay men is the show Tiger King - which is probably not a great sample.
Golden nuggets ⚰️
No no no no no no no
It's practically bedtime here and you send me the nightmare fuel that is Jeffrey Marsh? 😭
That's exactly why I'm here
Call it coaxing, indoctrination, egg cracking, grooming or whatever. It’s shitty and questionable AF when a 50ish year old dude wants tweens and teens to contact him, encourages them to cut off their family and calls himself their real family. I don’t care what it’s called, it’s just not OK.
On statistics and risk, I learnt that 80% of traffic accidents occur within five kilometres of home. So I moved.
Does that mean my heart is the epicenter of traffic accidents?
my home??