What if this is the end of normal civilization?
ovarit.com
Posted in o/GenderCritical by VeggieAnnie

There's some mild transphobia here, so be wary. It's very tame by Ovarit standards though. The whole thread is fucking hilarious. Some highlights:

Well (I know this is rambling)...what if that's us? What if we ARE living in the final days of Rome? What if humans refuse to recognize man, woman, sex, facts... What if we are among the last sane people left?

Because of course the thing that's going to kill our civilization is trans people existing.

I can't speak for other countries but I think the political state in the US is closer to communism than liberalism. Liberals used to defend free speech and political opposition. We're now living in a world where political opposition is defamed if not squashed outright. Freedom of speech is an illusion at this point. People are being fired for wrongthink. People are being censored. Huge institutions are telling lies and falsehoods and demanding the public play along. Books are being banned. Women are being dehumanized. History is being rewritten. Sorry but I'm a fatalist and this shit is a slippery slope that you can't come back from. If we continue to slide we'll end up in a communist state.

Hahahahahahaha. Ha. I just can't with this, it's so wrong on so many levels.

China will start a war while the West is crying about pronouns and then we'll have something more important to care about.

Because we gotta have "China bad" in here somewhere! Just classic.

  • Kanna [she/her]
    ·
    3 years ago

    It's not, but this seems to be where you're at with it so :shrug-outta-hecks:

      • fayyhana [she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The issue as I see it (not that I would've personally said anything) is "I don't think I've met a trans person" downplays the idea that you could've met a passing trans person and not known. If you understand that trans people make up roughly 1 in every 100~200 people, you realize that eventually you will see or meet one. I think phrasing it instead as "I've never met a visibly trans person" or "trans person who was vocal about it" or "trans-presenting person" better includes the fact that you probably have in fact met a trans person and just not recognized the encounter as such. I think there are probably issues with all the suggestions I just gave too though, they kind of focus on clocking trans people as a way to recognize them which is problematic in itself.

        Edit: Just to add, I think the language around this stuff is still imperfect and evolving so my intention isn't to brow beat comrades into "saying the right words" but to foster thought about how to best talk about these kinds of things

      • Good_Username [they/them,e/em/eir]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Ok, I have the energy to explain. @Bernies3trlnKielbasa, you probably want to read this too.

        When you say "I don’t think I’ve ever actually met a trans person and I doubt that these losers have either", it comes across as "there are so few trans people that they basically don't exist". But that's not true. We exist, and there are more of us than you'd expect.

        I guarantee you've talked to a trans person. You just didn't know they were trans. We're fairly invisible in public life quite a lot of the time, not least because cis people try very, very hard to pretend we don't exist. And it's exactly playing into that erasure when you imply that you've never met a trans person, when in fact, the probability is quite high that you have.

    • Bernies3trlnKielbasa [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      It's very normal phrasing to communicate what I wanted to communicate and which you have demonstrated that you understood accurately.

      I don't know what your beef is here. :shrug-outta-hecks: