this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
186 points (92.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41734 readers
1154 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I think progressives never thought about this because we banked on immigration and demographic change allowing us to win culturally and electorally but the issue is immigrants tend to be overwhelmingly male, that is how Trump won actually he won over a lot of Hispanic,Black,Asian and indigenous men who feel humiliated by a new culture, economy and world.

So what can we do rhetorically and policy wise to win more young men over ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

They were here before you, just because you disagree with them doesn't make them not feminists.

This is a great example of what I meant, btw: progressives act like every protestant denomination, calling eachother "not real christians" not realising they are all the same brand of sanctimonious.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They were here before you,

Pardon?

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Are you under the impression that the term "TERF" was invented in 2008 because that's when trans exclusion became a thing?

Do you seriously think that a movement that over its lifespan at some point didn't even include non-white women started off including non-female ones?

"Trans x are x" as a widespread progressive sociological stance is new, I don't even know if it's 20 years old, it may be closer to 10, even.

[–] Squirrelanna@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What part of TERF ideology is actually feminist and not a thinly veiled mask for conservative-based gender essentialist ideology that feminism at its core has been fighting against since it's inception, just this time aimed at trans women to protect "real women"?

I'm genuinely curious because all the advocacy I've seen from TERFS is all about demonizing transgender women, infantilizing transgender men and... Siding suspiciously often with conservatives more than their supposed ideological ancestors.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

What part of TERF ideology is actually feminist

The part that is your standard boilerplate second wave feminism, the only difference is how they define "woman," which simply hasn't changed in the last 20 odd years to conform to the mainline progressive position.

They are effectively conservative feminists, which sounds counterintuitive until you realise feminism is old enough to easily fall within the range of things that can have a conservative/progressive split.

not a thinly veiled mask for conservative-based gender essentialist ideology

You mean like feminism was until the adoption of intersectional sociological lenses by the progressive part of the movement? (and it arguably still is essentialist, just on qualities other than birth sex)

Cause like, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Julie Bindel, they were feminists before a lot of the feminists of today were alive, and they don't strike me as trans allies.

I’m genuinely curious because all the advocacy I’ve seen from TERFS is all about demonizing transgender women, infantilizing transgender men and… Siding suspiciously often with conservatives more than their supposed ideological ancestors.

You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean they aren't feminists, it just means they have different ontological positions that lead them to side with different people.

Often the enemy you know, especially one that appears (but isn't, in the case of conservatives) on the backfoot can look positively attractive compared to the new and alien.

If anything it should tell you how essentialist and misandrist second wave feminism was that they'd draw the line at male women and female men, and not at cis conservatives.


In brief, my point is: just because it's not your wave of feminism that you identify with, doesn't mean your wave doesn't directly descend from it and that it didn't pave the way for yours.

Movements change and evolve, society as a whole was not trans inclusive at all until the late 00s, and even then it was touch and go, and it's incredibly naïve to think that feminism, of all things, would somehow be morally lucky from its inception in the 1800s and never in ~150 years sided with the mainstream on axes other than pushing for women* to be equal to men* (*provided they are the right demographic on every other axis).