"And policy made accordingly. " Destroy the money pipeline. Primary are James (Jennifer) Pritzker and Martin (Martine) Rothblatt. There are others. This will require lawsuits and criminal investigations. Maybe it can happen, but it will require tracking their influence.
The loud & nasty protest tactic utilizes the same psychology that the child in the family who throws tantrums until appeased does. And it works.
You can see this in the USA - Israel relationship as well. Israel (after Moshe Dayan) plays the "I'm a good boy" role. Because of this, it is always easier to tell Israel to stop, because that works.
People who think that the grating, unpleasant, nasty, even evil tactic backfires are rarely correct, unfortunately. What happens is that people realize they can't stop the nasty without regular, severe force being applied. The reaction is to try to find some way out besides confrontation. People will tie themselves in knots to justify their bowing down to that strategy. You can even see this inside Israel right now. There is an organized opposition that appears to sincerely believe that all of the acts of Hamas are because of the actions of Netanyahu.
This is an unfortunate part of human relations. The bullhorns are dominance noise. Chimpanzees settle arguments this way most of the time. The loudest one wins dominance in the troop.
What you are picking up on is a performance of virtue masking aggression—a dynamic where someone uses a socially approved cause to grant themselves permission to engage in abusive behavior.
When someone uses extreme, misogynistic slurs against women while claiming to champion a marginalized group (like trans women), it often reveals a contradiction in motivation. A few key psychological and social mechanisms explain why this happens:
1. "Moral Licensing" and Permissible Hostility
In psychology, moral licensing occurs when a person feels that doing something "good" or holding a "virtuous" stance gives them a license or cover to act badly in another area.
* By aligning with a protected or progressive cause, the individual constructs a self-image (and a public image) of being morally superior.
* They then convince themselves that because they are "fighting for the right team," their hostility isn't misogyny—it's "justified anger."
* The slur provides the outlet for aggression, while the cause provides the shield against social consequences.
2. Instrumentalizing a Cause
When a person's primary focus in a debate is hurling severe insults rather than engaging in reasoned defense or constructive support, the group they claim to represent often becomes a prop.
If someone truly cared about the safety, dignity, and acceptance of trans women, they would generally recognize that using severe, dehumanizing language against women actively undermines their cause. It alienates allies, lowers the standard of discourse, and replaces genuine advocacy with personal cruelty. When the cruelty dominates the message, the cause is being used as a weapon rather than an end in itself.
3. The Thrill of "Sanctioned" Bullying
Many people carry underlying antisocial or aggressive tendencies, but social norms usually restrain them from calling people names. However, when an ideology or public discourse identifies a specific target as "the enemy" or "unforgivable," it creates a venue where bad behavior is not only tolerated by peers but celebrated.
For someone looking for an excuse to vent hostility toward women, attaching that hostility to a righteous-sounding banner allows them to engage in classic bullying while convincing themselves they are doing good.
Ultimately, genuine compassion or commitment to justice doesn't rely on dehumanizing others to make its point. When the language used is identical to standard misogyny, it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying drive is the desire to attack, not the desire to protect.
Well done!
What a pathetic bunch these lunatics show themselves to be. Love all the signs from your crowd!
"And policy made accordingly. " Destroy the money pipeline. Primary are James (Jennifer) Pritzker and Martin (Martine) Rothblatt. There are others. This will require lawsuits and criminal investigations. Maybe it can happen, but it will require tracking their influence.
The loud & nasty protest tactic utilizes the same psychology that the child in the family who throws tantrums until appeased does. And it works.
You can see this in the USA - Israel relationship as well. Israel (after Moshe Dayan) plays the "I'm a good boy" role. Because of this, it is always easier to tell Israel to stop, because that works.
People who think that the grating, unpleasant, nasty, even evil tactic backfires are rarely correct, unfortunately. What happens is that people realize they can't stop the nasty without regular, severe force being applied. The reaction is to try to find some way out besides confrontation. People will tie themselves in knots to justify their bowing down to that strategy. You can even see this inside Israel right now. There is an organized opposition that appears to sincerely believe that all of the acts of Hamas are because of the actions of Netanyahu.
This is an unfortunate part of human relations. The bullhorns are dominance noise. Chimpanzees settle arguments this way most of the time. The loudest one wins dominance in the troop.
I asked Gemini to explain crude name-calling...
What you are picking up on is a performance of virtue masking aggression—a dynamic where someone uses a socially approved cause to grant themselves permission to engage in abusive behavior.
When someone uses extreme, misogynistic slurs against women while claiming to champion a marginalized group (like trans women), it often reveals a contradiction in motivation. A few key psychological and social mechanisms explain why this happens:
1. "Moral Licensing" and Permissible Hostility
In psychology, moral licensing occurs when a person feels that doing something "good" or holding a "virtuous" stance gives them a license or cover to act badly in another area.
* By aligning with a protected or progressive cause, the individual constructs a self-image (and a public image) of being morally superior.
* They then convince themselves that because they are "fighting for the right team," their hostility isn't misogyny—it's "justified anger."
* The slur provides the outlet for aggression, while the cause provides the shield against social consequences.
2. Instrumentalizing a Cause
When a person's primary focus in a debate is hurling severe insults rather than engaging in reasoned defense or constructive support, the group they claim to represent often becomes a prop.
If someone truly cared about the safety, dignity, and acceptance of trans women, they would generally recognize that using severe, dehumanizing language against women actively undermines their cause. It alienates allies, lowers the standard of discourse, and replaces genuine advocacy with personal cruelty. When the cruelty dominates the message, the cause is being used as a weapon rather than an end in itself.
3. The Thrill of "Sanctioned" Bullying
Many people carry underlying antisocial or aggressive tendencies, but social norms usually restrain them from calling people names. However, when an ideology or public discourse identifies a specific target as "the enemy" or "unforgivable," it creates a venue where bad behavior is not only tolerated by peers but celebrated.
For someone looking for an excuse to vent hostility toward women, attaching that hostility to a righteous-sounding banner allows them to engage in classic bullying while convincing themselves they are doing good.
Ultimately, genuine compassion or commitment to justice doesn't rely on dehumanizing others to make its point. When the language used is identical to standard misogyny, it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying drive is the desire to attack, not the desire to protect.