>OY VEY GOYIM IF YOU DON’T ACCEPT MY **JEWISH DIALECTICAL RECONTEXTUALIZATION OF REALITY** THEN YOU’RE A SHILL AND YOU LOSE Dude. You’re better than this. I hate seeing real people fall for jewish hoaxes, so I’m going to let you in on something here. From what little I've seen of the concept and the premise it's putting forth, I can understand the surface-level appeal to some folks. As [this cuckchan screencap](https://i.postimg.cc/DzMgq8WS/dialectic.jpg) says, "superstraight" is **taking jewish dialectical tactics and utilizing them against the useful idiots** who previously had a near-monopoly thereon. The idea behind this strikes me as a variation of **the same tactic that neoconservatives have used for the last 60 years**. That being *“if we simply show them the error of their ways, they're bound to get caught in their own faults and come to our side!”* It carries with it a sense of smug superiority, and that's where a lot of the humor is able to be derived in the memes about it. Moreover, and most concerning to me, is that it intrinsically **legitimizes the existence of trannies, accepts the premise of their dialectic as valid, and is recontextualizing reality around the validity of said premise.** Not just the normalization of the existence of trannies, but also, more insidiously, of faggots. Not just as "they exist," oh, no; they're "ALLIES" in this whole endeavor. **The entire idea of "superstraight" strikes me as a very blatant end result of the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" model of communist dialectic.** And it works on two levels. Thesis: "Faggots are sane and normal." Antithesis: "Faggots are insane and should be killed." Synthesis: "Faggots are totally fine when they're fighting alongside us against trannies." AND Thesis: "Trannies are exactly what they say they are." Antithesis: "Trannies are their biological sex and should be killed." Synthesis: "Trannies legitimate exist, but you totally don't have to accept just certain aspects of them, if you don't want to, trust us.” As a *counterpoint* to the "superstraight" dialectic, what about this? It defeats trannies' (and faggots') own arguments, USING their own arguments, WITHOUT recontextualizing the argument, society, or even new terms within the context of said artificial arguments: >If “gender” is a “social construct,” then there is no such thing as a “gender binary.” If this is true, how can a person even “transition” between genders or be “genderfluid?” If gender is a social construct, and stereotypical gender binary “gender identities” (and the roles assigned thereto) are entirely made up (by an “oppressive society”), why would “transgenders” want to take on “made up roles” assigned to the nonexistent “gender” to which they are transitioning? Wouldn’t that simply reenforce the system’s “fake” stereotypes of gender roles in the gender binary? By the “logic” of the transsexuals, a man should be able to act like a man but claim that he is a woman and feel no need in “transitioning,” and everyone must accept it. >If it is impossible for straights to know what is it like to be gay (and vice versa, ignoring that gays were once sane), and it is impossible for Africans to know what it is like to be European (and vice versa), it is also impossible for a man to know what it is like to be a woman (and vice versa). By using transsexuals’ own arguments, no matter how much a man feels he “identifies” as a woman, he is, by their argument, wrong, because he cannot know what it is like to be a woman. He has no frame of reference to compare if he really feels like a woman. Therefore, if he chose to identify as a woman, he still cannot–nor should be–identified as a woman, because–since he had no frame of reference to judge–what he is choosing to identify as is a subjective view on what he thinks woman feel like, and he is simply trying to copy it.