I took real time to engage with this piece, only to find it riddled with contradictions and misrepresentations passed off as "TRUTH." Truth carries weight—a standard this argument repeatedly fails to meet. The reasoning relies on strawman arguments and cherry-picked anecdotes, including citing a cisgender heterosexual man as supposed evidence against trans people. Not only is the evidence lacking, but the presentation is inconsistent and poorly reasoned.
The critique of Jo Ro for “spitting out mantras” was particularly ironic, given the author’s own reliance on loaded statements devoid of self-awareness. They highlight the persecution of lesbians in various countries while failing to acknowledge that trans people face the same, if not greater, dangers. Their framework for privilege shifts arbitrarily—valid in one context, dismissed in another—without providing any substantive justification beyond vague assertions.
This is more than just incoherent rambling; it actively fuels division against another marginalized group. In a single stroke, the author manages to mischaracterize both conservative and liberal viewpoints, a feat that would almost be impressive if it weren’t so damaging. The glaring bias and lack of genuine debate skills are apparent throughout.
The economic arguments are similarly weak. It is perplexing that someone with such a superficial grasp of economic principles feels confident enough to discuss economies of scale. Furthermore, the author's perspective is overtly Western-centric. They incorrectly claim that no culture has ever recognized multiple sexes, disregarding the many societies that have acknowledged gender diversity for centuries.
Even more baffling is the assertion that gender dysphoria as a diagnosis is a racist construct originating in America 50 years ago. This ignores the extensive global history of trans identities and the academic interest in gender diversity long before modern Western frameworks. The lack of historical awareness, combined with an authoritative tone, makes for an argument that is not only misguided but profoundly arrogant.
If this piece is meant to be a serious contribution to discourse, it fails on multiple fronts—factually, logically, and ethically. Instead, it serves as little more than an exercise in self-indulgence, reinforcing personal biases under the guise of objective analysis. It's a damn shame their ego is so damn high that they won't be able to understand the points I'm making. I'm sure they read through this, got to the end and scoffed at multiple points. Maybe their pinky was raised a 45 degree angle as they type out a blistering, yet similarly nonsensical, rebuke. Or maybe they will shrink and claim they are abused or shunned by some bizarre misunderstanding of the paradox of tolerance. Who knows. It's unfortunate someone like you managed to waste my time to begin with.
So I looked through this and.. it's not really much of a critique, and more of a rant. There is little in the way of substantive evidence, or even an explanation as to why something is incorrect.
I also find it a bit ironic that you seem to feel the need to police the sexuality of other lesbians. You seem to be upset at lesbians who would be willing to date or be intimate with a trans woman. Is one of the issues that those in your line of thinking tend to bring up is the policing of lesbian women's sexuality? This seems to be a pretty hypocritical stance.
I also find it odd that you fundamentally question whether trans people even exist, stating they are a social contagen, not something real. How would you differentiate this from being lesbian? I can't measure being lesbian, or independently verify it. You can tell me you are, but I can tell you that you've just succumbed to a social contagen. This is, historically, what was argued at various points throughout history. How can you defend the legitimacy of your own experience, while dismissing the those of someone else, using the same logic used against you?
The truth is, we are both biological and sociological creatures. Both of these exist in us, simultaneously. Do there exist female biological elements? Of course. Does there also exist a social role of "woman", yes, obviously so. The world can be made better for women, and that should be done as much as we can, but we don't need to tear down other people in order to make that possible.
This is the biggest load of unhinged garbage I've ever seen. Your "rebuttal" here is so uninformed and irrational, I have second hand embarrassment. You've made it very clear here that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and all you're doing is repeating the deranged rhetoric of your political cult. You sound like an AI trans activists pre-programmed before sending you to this substack post, regurgitating the mantras word by word, right down to the poor spelling and reading comprehension. I know for a fact that I am now dumber for reading this reply. Thanks for that.
Uh Oh. 😹 Someone’s trying to start something…lord, let my notifications not blow up.
Okay…but seriously…this is why I don’t argue with TRAs. There is nothing to say. A TRA can come across a perfectly clear, well-thought out article complete with common sense, statistics and information, and still throw mantras at you. It’s a cult-like religion.
If you want to engage with them, you end up having to stoop to their level into a useless shouting match and that’s not something I want to use my energy for. I am really disgusted with TRA culture and I avoid making personal contact with it if I can.
People have to figure shit out in their own time, and some people unfortunately never make it there.
I do appreciate that you are maintaining a level head, and I respect that. Not looking to sling mud, but I obviously took issue with some of your statements. I disagreed with them. Just because a statement is commonly made (a "mantra", if you will) doesn't make it any more or less true. It's truth should stand on it's own.
Eh, I'll agree that I didn't run spell checker, or even review it as thoroughly as I could have. I'll hand you that, and I'll attempt to make more care next time.
In regards to the other stuff.. feel free to actually point out the issues? Just because you've heard something a lot doesn't make it untrue. Doesn't make it true either, but "regurgitating the mantras" does little to actually determine if they are true or false.
I took real time to engage with this piece, only to find it riddled with contradictions and misrepresentations passed off as "TRUTH." Truth carries weight—a standard this argument repeatedly fails to meet. The reasoning relies on strawman arguments and cherry-picked anecdotes, including citing a cisgender heterosexual man as supposed evidence against trans people. Not only is the evidence lacking, but the presentation is inconsistent and poorly reasoned.
The critique of Jo Ro for “spitting out mantras” was particularly ironic, given the author’s own reliance on loaded statements devoid of self-awareness. They highlight the persecution of lesbians in various countries while failing to acknowledge that trans people face the same, if not greater, dangers. Their framework for privilege shifts arbitrarily—valid in one context, dismissed in another—without providing any substantive justification beyond vague assertions.
This is more than just incoherent rambling; it actively fuels division against another marginalized group. In a single stroke, the author manages to mischaracterize both conservative and liberal viewpoints, a feat that would almost be impressive if it weren’t so damaging. The glaring bias and lack of genuine debate skills are apparent throughout.
The economic arguments are similarly weak. It is perplexing that someone with such a superficial grasp of economic principles feels confident enough to discuss economies of scale. Furthermore, the author's perspective is overtly Western-centric. They incorrectly claim that no culture has ever recognized multiple sexes, disregarding the many societies that have acknowledged gender diversity for centuries.
Even more baffling is the assertion that gender dysphoria as a diagnosis is a racist construct originating in America 50 years ago. This ignores the extensive global history of trans identities and the academic interest in gender diversity long before modern Western frameworks. The lack of historical awareness, combined with an authoritative tone, makes for an argument that is not only misguided but profoundly arrogant.
If this piece is meant to be a serious contribution to discourse, it fails on multiple fronts—factually, logically, and ethically. Instead, it serves as little more than an exercise in self-indulgence, reinforcing personal biases under the guise of objective analysis. It's a damn shame their ego is so damn high that they won't be able to understand the points I'm making. I'm sure they read through this, got to the end and scoffed at multiple points. Maybe their pinky was raised a 45 degree angle as they type out a blistering, yet similarly nonsensical, rebuke. Or maybe they will shrink and claim they are abused or shunned by some bizarre misunderstanding of the paradox of tolerance. Who knows. It's unfortunate someone like you managed to waste my time to begin with.
So I looked through this and.. it's not really much of a critique, and more of a rant. There is little in the way of substantive evidence, or even an explanation as to why something is incorrect.
I also find it a bit ironic that you seem to feel the need to police the sexuality of other lesbians. You seem to be upset at lesbians who would be willing to date or be intimate with a trans woman. Is one of the issues that those in your line of thinking tend to bring up is the policing of lesbian women's sexuality? This seems to be a pretty hypocritical stance.
I also find it odd that you fundamentally question whether trans people even exist, stating they are a social contagen, not something real. How would you differentiate this from being lesbian? I can't measure being lesbian, or independently verify it. You can tell me you are, but I can tell you that you've just succumbed to a social contagen. This is, historically, what was argued at various points throughout history. How can you defend the legitimacy of your own experience, while dismissing the those of someone else, using the same logic used against you?
The truth is, we are both biological and sociological creatures. Both of these exist in us, simultaneously. Do there exist female biological elements? Of course. Does there also exist a social role of "woman", yes, obviously so. The world can be made better for women, and that should be done as much as we can, but we don't need to tear down other people in order to make that possible.
This is the biggest load of unhinged garbage I've ever seen. Your "rebuttal" here is so uninformed and irrational, I have second hand embarrassment. You've made it very clear here that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and all you're doing is repeating the deranged rhetoric of your political cult. You sound like an AI trans activists pre-programmed before sending you to this substack post, regurgitating the mantras word by word, right down to the poor spelling and reading comprehension. I know for a fact that I am now dumber for reading this reply. Thanks for that.
Uh Oh. 😹 Someone’s trying to start something…lord, let my notifications not blow up.
Okay…but seriously…this is why I don’t argue with TRAs. There is nothing to say. A TRA can come across a perfectly clear, well-thought out article complete with common sense, statistics and information, and still throw mantras at you. It’s a cult-like religion.
If you want to engage with them, you end up having to stoop to their level into a useless shouting match and that’s not something I want to use my energy for. I am really disgusted with TRA culture and I avoid making personal contact with it if I can.
People have to figure shit out in their own time, and some people unfortunately never make it there.
I do appreciate that you are maintaining a level head, and I respect that. Not looking to sling mud, but I obviously took issue with some of your statements. I disagreed with them. Just because a statement is commonly made (a "mantra", if you will) doesn't make it any more or less true. It's truth should stand on it's own.
Eh, I'll agree that I didn't run spell checker, or even review it as thoroughly as I could have. I'll hand you that, and I'll attempt to make more care next time.
In regards to the other stuff.. feel free to actually point out the issues? Just because you've heard something a lot doesn't make it untrue. Doesn't make it true either, but "regurgitating the mantras" does little to actually determine if they are true or false.