International Brotherhood of Men

I believe at the root of the anti trans sentiments there is a level of envy coming from the common man. There is also a conflict of identity. Because the common man has an artificial identity, the tranny has a second identity that can be perceived as competitive.

In reality the 2 identities do not really compete. But if someone is excited with some rhetorical trickery, he can come to think his identity is in contrast with the trans identity. This can be a rhetorical magician trickery, made purposefully to convince people there is an identity that competes against them, so these people will be irrationally angered. It is done for political reasons of course. You always have to ask yourself why elites require of you to be angry and for what reasons.

Another thing I believe is that is not common to be "an individual". Elevated levels of individualism are uncommon. All that american literature from jack london and these people being individuals in their own garden or the people doing the huntsman outdoor adventures are uncommon. A communist argument I heard is that to be individual you need material resources, I agree by the way. Which is why the common man relies on collective identities like religion, ideology groups and so on. Because nobody that is poor has means to define himself out of a group.

This leads poorer strata of society to feel a conflict of identity against the trans. And a sense of envy as well because it can appear more resources are being given to the trans, for the development of the trans identity. Many conflicts in society are derived from identities battling one another. So the antitrans people feel status anxiety (because they get poorer), feel like institutions abandon them and favor the tranny, feel cultural displacement because they are told trannies are culturally relevant.

In the perspective of a low status poor shitbag loser of society, seeing another identity promoted other than his own, is in itself a reason to have anxiety. Because these people rely on a constant affirmation of their identity. If you do not affirm their identity every single day, they lose a reason to exist. As I said they are not individuals. An individual would survive even if society was not promoting him specifically. Unfortunately elevated levels of individualism are all impossible for the masses, they only exist in american literature and comic books. Masses rely on constant enforcement of their identity.

Economic security increases psychological autonomy it will make you "an individual" if you are gifted with psychic traits that favor the outcome. Poverty increases reliance on collective identity, like christian identity is on the rise, or BLM racial identity, or white worldwide movement, white identity is on the rise.

The poorer, the more reliant on collective identity. The richer, the more likely you can derive an individual identity like in comic books, anime, american literature, or like in greek hero myths. This is not an internet speculation its more or less all true what I said. Which is why some communists say you cannot be individual without having resources. I think their idea should be considered "basically true", and taken very seriously. Like, libertarian ideas are much more common inside communism than they are on the right, I would say the right wing libertarianism is a recent cultural appropriation that became mainstream due to large investment and populism. Many libertarian leaders like Hoppe also admit this, they say they did it on purpose, because they felt powerless against academia. They say since communism dominates in academia, they have to open a dialog with the public and mobilize the masses. So they made public ideas that previously were discussed inside libertarian communist small circles, but they appropriated them twisting them into right wing populist libertarianism.

When a marginalized group receives visibility, legal protections, or institutional support, it can be framed with rhetorical magician tricks as "special treatment". Honestly, if you pay attention, the tranny received very very little. The money we spent on trannies were penny, the medical treatment was cheap. Hormones are stupid powders and injections. The science is inexpensive.

We spent much more money for UBI (universal boomer income). We had boomers do vacation in the mountains transported with our money, for "health reasons". I mean, we spend much much more money for the part of the population most active in political choices, the part that is richer: the boomers.

Trannies achieved so very little. And their political strategy sucked so hard they couldnt avoid being hated by entire society, a thing I tried to prevent by the way. But they calledme "schizo retard" despite I had nothing but good intentions.

No it's just misandry.

VH911 wrote: 17 Feb 2026, 05:47 No it's just misandry.

I think is a conflict of identity that demonstrates 1 thesis about communism as "basically true".

The idea is lack of resource = lack of identity.

The debate is long, people experimented with the idea of ultimate individual. Its mostly a literary experiment. You can ask yourself too if you want, in which way you would be able to transcend a collective and become yourself instead.

Well, in the public discourse we seen recently the antitranny hatred, it was intense. People felt as if the affirmation of a tranny identity was a negation of their own identity. Why they felt that? I think is because if you do not spend constantly money to affirm identities of poor people, they stop existing.

That is how I see the situation, identity has to be affirmed constantly. Or else peopl get anxious