I suppose, but those are staggeringly rare and can essentially just be ignored.

> People will say "yes, but it doesn't mean literally kill all men", and of course it doesn't.

As an honest question: why “of course it doesn’t”?

Because both sexes are required for the species to survive. Killing all men would mean the end of all women too.

Dude, they're also convincing children that the sexes are interchangeable, then neutering them.

Do you think that maybe human extinction is part of the goal?

But if you talk about that, then all of a sudden you are a conspiracy theorist. Nevermind the incentives in play that would make that solve a very significant amount of otherwise seemingly intractable problems humans face in the present decade.

We've been (I say we) sexually reproducing for over 1,000,000,000 years.

And yet somehow we've reached the point where if you acknowledge human sexual dimorphism, you're a fascist.

It's a damned weird ideology, and if it doesn't go away it should at least be acknowledged as a religion.

Acknowledging how things are isn't fascism. Imposing your ideas about how things should be in a way that harms trans people is fascist.

The goal is parthenogenesis, I think Seksmisja movie is prophetic in some sense

Hey nice hyperbolic strawman you've got there. It's actually the opposite. Transphobes think sex is interchangeable and can be imposed from the outside. The rest of us think gender comes from the inside and simply believe in loving and supporting people regardless of how THEY express their own gender.

People like you want to impose an external concept of gender onto trans people that doesn't comport with their self image. You want to forgo the medical science and drive trans people into depression and suicide because the idea of it makes you feel yucky.

> Killing all men would mean the end of all women too.

There is some percentage of “feminists” who don’t love women but simply hate men.

There is some percentage of $x who hate $y for almost any value and combination of $x ad $y. It's not meaningful or constructive to look at the extreme nutjob examples when examining a movement in its entirety.

I completely disagree. As you know, the extreme nut job examples are always the loudest people in the group. It is not meaningless to account for them.

I agree many have an apparent outsized influence, but with some exceptions in most cases I think this is only optics, and they don't really represent all that many people.

"280 character soundbite" social media isn't helping either here, nor is "zomg person X said something ridiculous"-type "journalism".

Well, someone did seriously suggest getting rid of 90% of men, and invented a fairly popular slogan in the process. "The future -- if there is one -- is female" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Miller_Gearhart

Because there’s no conceivable way it happens, because the power structure in society is predominantly held by and supportive of straight white men - so, “kill all black people” is a thing the state has tried to do, “kill all women” is a thing the state has tacitly ignored, “kill all gay people” was official policy for a while, “kill the trans people” is I think a law in Florida - but kill all men? Come on now, we have Laws in this society.

Didn't need laws when propaganda could convince large numbers of men to take up arms against each other in bloody combat.

> “kill the trans people” is I think a law in Florida

Wait, which law is that?

>“kill all black people” is a thing the state has tried to do,

No, generally a slave caste are not all murdered. My grandmother's second husband who had a number tattooed on his arm and spent years hiding in a forest, that was an attempt to kill all the X people.