Fascism always has enemies that are simultaneously so weak that they will be easily defeated by fascist superiority ... while also being terribly oppressive that it will take a great battle to overthrow the powerful enemies of fascism
this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
788 points (100.0% liked)
196
5341 readers
25 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well put. Also works with the classic trope of lazy but simultaneously job stealing immigrants
If you want to keep the fiction up, you need to keep imagining additional things: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RequiredSecondaryPowers.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I've heard something similar for conspiracy theories also.
NASA is at the same time an agency with enough advanced technology and resources that they were able to fool the entire world for a several-day-long broadcast of a fake moon landing, while also being too feeble and pathetic to have actually gone to the moon.
Then they snuck all the stuff they said they had on the moon to the moon before the other nations got there to look.
"The enemy is massing their military near our border, which is a threat to us! We can defeat their military easily of course, they are disorganised and weak. But their movements are hostile and threatening to us! So we must preemptively attack them! Not because we need the element of surprise, but because we want to demonstrate our superior military tactics! This will be a quick 3-day special military operation. Because they are weak and we are strong but they are an existential threat to us."
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fascism requires a group of others to persecute. Ideally, that group would be very small (as a percentage of the overall population) and already somewhat marginalized/"different".
So here we are.
Bigots are too weak to participate in society. They should be banned.
Being bigoted is literally a skill issue. People with less money, status, or loved ones are more likely to hold bigoted views. Even in competitive online games higher ranks is less bigots
load more comments
(1 replies)
It seems that their imagined enemy is both too strong and too weak... Jeez, where have I heard that before?
The quantum immigrant that is both stealing jobs from Americans while simultaneously nothing more than a drain on welfare?
I agree with the sentiment being discussed here, but the argument being peddled isn't that they are too strong for sports, it's that they are too strong for womens sports, like women are so weak and their sports are a joke. The current right wing arseholes in the US are also claiming that women shouldn't be in the military. This nonsense is layers of bigotry deep.
You aren't really refuting the conundrum presented by the woman. She is pointing out the same thing you are, but I feel like you're not getting the point.
Trans women are too strong to be in women's sports, implying they are stronger than cis women. Yet simultaneously being told they are too weak to be in the army, something that they aren't even saying of cis women, implying that trans women are weaker than cis women.
The woman in the interview is correctly pointing out the hypocrisy here to highlight that it's not logical, it's just bigotry.
I feel like their hypocrisy and transphobia can be pointed out even simpler by:
"No!! You can't be in women's sports, because you are a man!!"
and
"No!! You can't be in the military, because you're not... a... man...?"
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
*transpeople shouldn't be in the military.
Most people who require medication aren't allowed in the military. It makes logistics so much harder. This goes for those with severe allergies, diabetes, or any number of issues. There's a reason why MREs are super shelf stable, why most small arms use the same 5.56 round, why everything uses diesel, etc, etc. It's all to make logistics easier and better.
Hormones fall under the same category. What happens when a transman stops taking testosterone? What happens when a transwoman stops taking estrogen? The first thing a good enemy will do is cut off the logistics chain, and that would cripple anyone who needs meds.
You could maybe make an argument that people on medication shouldn't be sent behind enemy lines. But you realize that's a tiny fraction of servicemembers, right? Most servicemembers are stationed within the country, and many more are stationed at bases in allied nations, where supply chain isn't at risk.
And... if there is a supply chain issue, they've got bigger problems, like food?
Lol, I'm currently active duty and prescribed four different daily medications for long term issues. None of this is disqualifying or prevents me from deploying. This is a complete non-issue outside of a FOB
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
TBF, Pete Hegseth also doesn't want cis-women in the military.
Imagine being at war for literally over 90% of your societies existence and you don't want half your population to have the ability to become combatants.
F tier warrior race
There's some --some---reason to not want women in front-line infantry positions. The combat load that infantry has to carry around works out to be over 100#, and it's a struggle to get cis-men fit and strong enough to carry that, and still ruck 20+ miles at a time without collapsing. Most women are unlikely to be able to achieve that, particularly when they may weigh only 25# more than the load that they have to carry. But, IMO, as long as they can meet fitness standards, let 'em serve in the infantry if that's what their ASVAB scores allow and it's the MOS they want.
Give that the new rifle--XM7, I think?--weighs more than the M5, and the ammunition is heavier, that load is gonna get heavier, and people that are more in-tune with the military than I am tend to believe that we need to get the combat load lighter, by a lot.
Honestly, most of it really comes down to Pete Hegseth being sexist.
load more comments
(1 replies)
All three of those dudes are trying to hide their boners.
This is a stupid argument. Trans women are not too strong for sport, but too strong for women's sport.
What's the point of segregating sports by gender?
If it's a matter of performance then they can break sports into performance classes, no gender segregation needed.
If it's a matter of fairness and making space for women in sports, then trans women deserve not to have to play with the boys just like any other woman.
What’s the point of degregating sports by gender?
Because men outclass women in almost any physical ability, be it strength, speed or endurance. Just look at world records.
If it’s a matter of performance then they can break sports into performance classes
Ah yes, let's make sport less accessible by introducing arbitrary limitations. Do we have basketball up to 1.60m height, then up to 1.70m height, then up to 1.80m height and so on? And do we introduce different tiers within those tiers by only having people up to 1.70m and 60kg, then 1.70 and 70kg ...
You CANT split sport into "performance classes", at least not in a way where it would help - men would on average still be in the higher "performance class" and nothing would change.
If it’s a matter of fairness and making space for women in sports, then trans women deserve not to have to play with the boys just like any other woman.
I know you probably don't want to hear that, but biologically, trans women aren't women. They are still physically superior to cis women. That's why we prefix them with "trans". Even after extensive hormone therapy, trans women still have some advantages over cis women.
Nobody has a problem with trans women in non-physical sports. Nobody would bat an eye if there was a trans women in chess. Nobody would care if there was a trans woman in e-sports (we actually had one years ago in league if I remember correctly). But we can't just abandon fairness for cis women in sport because we want to appease a small number of trans women, and on a physical level (especially before hormone therapy), they still do have an advantage.
Because men outclass women in almost any physical ability
I have never heard this argument come out of someone who doesn't look like a wet noodle could outclass them in physical ability. It's always a keyboard warrior who hasn't cooked a meal since the Kraft Mac he made in 9th grade when his parents left him alone one evening and wouldn't know what the inside of a gym looks like if it weren't in GTA.
Motherfucker, I knew plenty of cis women who could easily out-class me in physical abilities and I was in the US military
The only people who care what's in the pants of the enlisted person beside them are pieces of shit who don't deserve to be there. Focus on your fucking job, and stop fantasizing about their crotch.
Not once did I ever wonder what a person was assigned at birth while I was in. They wouldn't be there if they couldn't physically do it.
Nobody is lowering qualifications of military personnel because the individual is trans.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Ah yes, let's make sport less accessible by introducing arbitrary limitations.
Where did I suggest that? Are you sure you aren't hallucinating? Aren't you the one demanding an arbitrary limitation on what sort of women are allowed to compete?
Do we have basketball up to 1.60m height, then up to 1.70m height, then up to 1.80m height and so on? And do we introduce different tiers within those tiers by only having people up to 1.70m and 60kg, then 1.70 and 70kg ...
I said "performance classes" not "height and weight classes".
You CANT split sport into "performance classes", at least not in a way where it would help - men would on average still be in the higher "performance class" and nothing would change.
Why not? Explain your reasoning for why women wouldn't perform to roughly the same level as everyone else in their performance class. Bonus points if you can manage to avoid sexism or classism in your explanation.
I know you probably don't want to hear that, but biologically, trans women aren't women.
I know you probably don't want to hear this, but the biological differences between cis and trans people are irrelevant. Sports were only segregated because men's precious feelings get hurt when they are bested by women. Forcing trans women to compete against men will cause men to lose to people they don't recognize as men and thereby create more problems than were solved.
Nobody has a problem with trans women in non-physical sports. Nobody would bat an eye if there was a trans women in chess.
Wow...
You should have just admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. Bans on trans women in chess have been a multi-year scandal for the International Chess Federation.
But we can't just abandon fairness for cis women in sport because we want to appease a small number of trans women, and on a physical level (especially before hormone therapy), they still do have an advantage.
Because abandoning fairness to enforce gender testing that will primarily harm cis women by excluding them from competition for having too much natural testosterone like Caster Semenya is better, right?
Explain your reasoning for why women wouldn’t perform to roughly the same level as everyone else in their performance class.
Because the entire concept of "performance class" is absolutely stupid. I don't even know how to argue against it because the entire concept is dumb. Sport is about competition, who is the best etc. Your performance class bullshit would kill that off.
I know you probably don’t want to hear this, but the biological differences between cis and trans people are irrelevant. Sports were only segregated because men’s precious feelings get hurt when they are bested by women. Forcing trans women to compete against men will cause men to lose to people they don’t recognize as men and thereby create more problems than were solved.
Actually, sports were segregated because the average women can't compete with the average man, and a single look into the guiness book of world records would show you that. However, if that's your world view, I'm sorry, no point in arguing. I'll still answer the rest, but that's probably the last thing I'll answer from you.
Bans on trans women in chess have been a multi-year scandal for the International Chess Federation.
I am well aware of that, but it shouldn't be. Chess is about intellect, not physical prowess, and women are absolutely on the same level as men.
When did they start segregating e-sports? Last I checked, the big tournaments were all mixed.
They don't ... because physical prowess is irrelevant.
Because abandoning fairness to enforce gender testing that will primarily harm cis women by excluding them from competition for having too much natural testostetone like Caster Semenya is better, right?
Caster Semenya has a condition causing her to have much higher testosterone levels than other women. That has nothing to do with trans people. I do agree that excluding her because of this is unfair.
Anyways, as I've stated above, that's the last thing I'll answer as you don't have any arguments, just feelings and "men bad". Have a good one!
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
The difference is smaller than you might think
Abstract Objective: To examine the effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance among transwomen and transmen.
Methods: We reviewed fitness test results and medical records of 29 transmen and 46 transwomen who started gender affirming hormones while in the United States Air Force. We compared pre- and post-hormone fitness test results of the transwomen and transmen with the average performance of all women and men under the age of 30 in the Air Force between 2004 and 2014. We also measured the rate of hormone associated changes in body composition and athletic performance.
Results: Participants were 26.2 years old (SD 5.5). Prior to gender affirming hormones, transwomen performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in 1 min and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster than their female counterparts. After 2 years of taking feminising hormones, the push-up and sit-up differences disappeared but transwomen were still 12% faster. Prior to gender affirming hormones, transmen performed 43% fewer push-ups and ran 1.5 miles 15% slower than their male counterparts. After 1 year of taking masculinising hormones, there was no longer a difference in push-ups or run times, and the number of sit-ups performed in 1 min by transmen exceeded the average performance of their male counterparts.
Summary: The 15-31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women's events.
but transwomen were still 12% faster.
That's a massive difference in even amateur sports let alone elite level. That contradicts your point rather than support it.
What? We can use science and data to look at the impacts empirically instead of throwing baseless speculations around???
Who knew?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Isn’t it cuz they aren’t “mentally fit”?
Which still isnt a good excuse to be a bigot, you can be non trans and less mentally fit than a trans person yet allowed in the military. I hate this country sometimes
load more comments
(1 replies)
if ex military trans want to kick off the revolution, they will have earned my respect.
Respect shouldn't have to be earned, it should be the default to respect everyone. It is reasonable for trust or admiration to be earned, but not respect.
There are two distinct kinds of respect: for the human being (respect the human rights) and for the person (respect what that person does).
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›