Dear God, are you claiming that the proof for the three things I asked for proof for can only be found at this specific archive? Thay doesn’t even make sense, how is proof of widespread government violence in order to prevent reunification found there? How is proof of extensive nuremburg-esque trials post-reunificstion found there?

Seems like the soviet government was more responsive than contemporary western governments, but not as much as east Germany: https://artsmatter.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2025/01/28/trans-visibility-in-the-late-soviet-union/#%3A~%3Atext=First%2C+they+became+visible%2C+at%2Crecognized+as+ordinary+Soviet+citizens.

Okay so you are claiming that there is proof but we would have to go to Berlin to find proof? In the age where internet archives exist?

If neither of us are willing to physically go there than why did you cite it as a source to support your claims?

Cool than you’d be able to share things from the archives that meet those specified criterion?

Please link me to sources then.

“Whataboutism” being considered a logical fallacy was made up by an Irish Unionist (as in supporting Ireland being a British colony) because he didn’t like it when people responded to “the irish resistance is violent” with “the British are magnitudes more violent and their violence wouldn’t stop if the violent resistance stopped”

Consider understanding the historical context of a line of argumentation before using it.

Wow, that sounds horrible, I bet there were a lot of prosecutions of the people who carried those things out once the government reunified!

Oh, and the physical evidence and documentation of those torture dungeons after the wall fell, there must be so much evidence of all the horrors committed!

And all the violence the evil communist government must have done to keep itself in power and prevent reunification must have been really evident, I bet we can find newspaper clippings and even video on the widespread violence that happened in an effort to hold on to power.

Wait, I’m getting reports that none of those things actually happened, fuck. It would have lined up so nicely with the narrative taught to me by American education and popular media, that’s a real bummer.

As labor is further socialized (basically centralizing and then running itself without capitalist intervention) you end up having labor done by men and women and women still being responsible for more domestic duties which are labor but not considered labor(because those being done for free subsidizes capitalist profit) the solution though isn’t to keep women in the household, it is to do socialism, where domestic labor can be socialized (it isn’t under capitalism because why would you socialize labor you’re already getting for free?)

Yeah, and no fault divorce keeps the workforce happier and reduces domestic violence (meaning less injured and killed workers), abortion on demand makes it easier for people to continue working, and socializing former domestic labor improves the efficiency of that work and frees up labor for leisure or other labor, but those things are still good and part of the socialist feminist project.

A million Uyghurs, whose only apparent crime is being Muslim, have been sent to labor camps and undergone forced sterilization.

Do you know the sources of these claims? Because you’re repeating stuff that was first spread around by a German Christian nationalist (a euphemism) employed by a cia front group, which had already been debunked, and could be debunked by anyone looking at his methodology who is able to read mandarin.

Why is this myth pushed so hard by western countries which slaughter Muslims by the millions, and are engaged in genocide against a majority Muslim population as we speak?

Why do Muslim delegations visiting uniformly support the way China has treated its minority Muslim populations? Before you say sectarianism, investigate and realize that the delegations were intentionally multi-sectarian.

Tiananmen Square started out as people peacefully protesting government corruption, and ended in the state murdering them.

How violently do you think the US would have responded to US protestors trying to overthrow the government when they start burning and lynching to death unarmed soldiers? You can still find photos online of mutilated PLA soldiers corpses from june 2nd. 300 or so dead, including the soldiers that were killed, seems pretty light. Oh wait, the US military would never show up to a protest not armed to the teeth, silly me.

You do understand that free speech that doesn’t threaten the government is tolerated everywhere, right? Us having more free speech here is just a function of the US government feeling more secure in its power, you can still find examples of free speech being punished in the US when it has threatened its power.

Yeah, I’m the egotistical one, not the cis guy trying to explain why it isn’t actually transmisogyny to a trans woman who has studied and experienced this specific form of transmisogyny.

You aren’t some static being where people attempting to change your mind about something you haven’t investigated is some violation. If that is what it feels like to you maybe you need to do some self reflection, because what I am describing to you is literally just the process of learning.

Edit: also men like you love to force your preference on me. Do you know how many times I’ve been cornered (because some men like to do that when hitting on someone) and had to be there for a man’s significant emotional event after realizing he was attracted to a trans woman? This is me being proactive so some trans woman doesn’t have to deal with your freak out if you end up hitting on a trans woman.

So in this metaphor trans people are AI, cartoons, and wax figures, and cis people are human?

Or, on a less confrontational tact, do you only experience attraction once you’ve confirmed that the person is cis? How does that work, do you ask for medical records before having an initial impression of people?

What do you mean by my preferences? I am annoyed when people spout bullshit that they don’t understand is bullshit and then get defensive when you tell them they’re wrong, stop playing the victim.

Well read on transmisogyny? How do you want me to point out to you that you’re incorrect? Like, earnestly, what is the right way to point out to someone that they’re being bigoted when they don’t know they’re being bigoted?

I know more on this than you

on a personal level- plenty of men hit on me and then when I speak in my non-passing voice to let them know I’m a lesbian react with disgust. Men who say they’d never be attracted to a trans woman have had no problem aggressively hitting on me

On an academic level- I’ve read a lot of feminist works on misogyny, and works on how transmisogyny operates.

You haven’t done enough study on the topic to have an opinion that you should personally stand by.

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak?

If you have issues with my tone maybe you should have raised the issue instead of me, because you obviously know how to do it better.

You can still collaboratively discuss with him why he is incorrect and how he is falling into ambient transmisogyny if you want.

This is an utterly ridiculous straw man. Literally worthy of ridicule. These are bad arguments and you should be ashamed to have made them.

Yeah, let me just page up all the trans and feminist academics writing on stigma theory as it relates to misogyny and transmisogyny and let them know that they are wrong, that cis men are never afraid of being tainted by an association with women or queer people

Or maybe you’re just wrong and defensive, which is 1000 times worse than just being wrong and learning from being wrong, which is a normal human thing.

When your online ego isn’t on the line I’d suggest reading Sexed Up by Julie Serano.

At minimum keep it to yourself. Ask yourself what the utility of saying it is. Because what I read is “I support trans people but I still find them gross personally because if I don’t say that people will think I’m a f*g”

I think that your “preference” is based on very sloppy thinking rooted in ambient transphobia. I think you are also confusing a desire for precision of thought with being pedantic.

I think you’re trying to imply that preferences are neutral facts. I think you should consider how you’d react to someone saying “I am only attracted to white women” or “I am only attracted to 18 y/o women”. Do you think their preference is a neutral fact or an expression of something?

Oh, also, expression of “preference” is different than having a preference. Ask why you felt the need to say it in this thread.

So you were never attracted to those people?