GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Discussion in a conversation framed like that is just as futile as women conversing in a forum of men who have a grudge against all women in general -- of course every women has committed a sin again maledom in that distorted view of reality. If a women disagrees with any of their points then her humanity is cast away from her and she is nothing other than the caricatures that exist their futile machinations.

Interesting example...

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hearing opposing views, most of which doesn't contain any kind of insult, is not self-harm.

I don't need to imagine how a QT poster could feel by coming here. I've been in the minority position in a hostile environment in another forum for a very different issue and I still stuck around. I could argue that is a form of "self-harm" for me to keep coming here to argue with random people who don't listen, too. And as I said, just asking questions about transgenderism is enough to attract a rage storm to you in a good bunch of the internet. Don't you think many GC posters knows exactly how is to be in the minority position? Anyway, although moderation is important, when discussing any controversial subject that has been debated to death, some anger is going to be expected. So, I don't know what QT potential posters, expect besides being treated as royalty like everywhere else. Maybe I should be more sympathetic, but I cannot. They keep acting as if they were the most oppressed people in the world when they get everything served in a silver plate. And it's not like my sympathy would be reciprocated.

Furthermore, you're assuming I never looked for some potential mod before you. I did it in private, but I got rejected. And it's not as I had some options to choose from. About the "unmoderated" posts, I saw them. We're surely going to disagree; however, if I ignored them, it means I though they didn't merit action or I left them to other mods to decide (yeah, useless hope, I know). That being said, if I treated GC users with "kid gloves", so I did with QT. I did not banned circling, for instance...

Anyway, I didn't burn out for workload since there wasn't much activity here most days. I did because, although I tried to honor my value for fairness, I resented every single time I had to mod in QT favour. I just didn't sign up for that. I became a mod because there was not an active GC mod and I wanted thing were more balanced. I didn't expected that I'd be doing QT mod's job because they couldn't bother to show up. Plus by arguing with QT and trying to stay civil after reading so many infuriating and absurd takes, not to mention all the lies. It was because I absolutely disagree with the rules that make impossible for me to speak honestly; a rule that is not going away ever because QT get more offended by the truth than whatever hideous and dehumanizing insult that anyone could think of. Plus I keep getting increasingly frustrated by real life development of transgenderism (that in spite whatever trans identified people says it has a big impact on so many people because everyone must accommodate their every wish regardless of the consequences) alongside other issues, which I won't mention nor detail so not to get too political.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I will eventually get to reading through and replying to all of the messages in this post that I haven't gotten to but I do not have the time nor will to do it all at once en total.

Unfortunately I did not read the reply in time. I'm fine with people being angry or wishing ill on me as it only shows the nature of their own character. I am no stranger to individual trans people being equated to rapists, etc despite the accused having no connection or knowledge of any of the events in question. In fact, I believe that was much more common in the past than it is now. You get used to it. Eventually one learns the truth that some people's lives will always be defined by an unhealthy negative fixation on trans people and that energy needs to be released somehow since everyone is human. That was the case in the 1980s and still rings true today. That is OK and after experiencing that energy from enough people over time you realize that they are only affecting their own selves with that energy since it will ultimately change nothing about how trans people live their lives. However, if the overarching nature of this forum is just people airing out their frustrations, you are right in that I do not have the time to stick around for that. Discussion in a conversation framed like that is just as futile as women conversing in a forum of men who have a grudge against all women in general -- of course every women has committed a sin again maledom in that distorted view of reality. If a women disagrees with any of their points then her humanity is cast away from her and she is nothing other than the caricatures that exist their futile machinations.

Everyone is human with different starting points. It is human nature for people to say that if someone doesn't agree with all of their view of reality (or wishes for how you live your life despite having no stake in it; everyone has something to say for free about how people should live their lives better despite not experiencing their reality :-)) and has some level of self respect, then they must not be a good person or lacks empathy for a large swath of people. That is a tale as old as time that will happen in debates much more important than about some measly trans people.

I don't think society will ever fully get past this issue and trans people eventually just realize they need to let go and live life. Those that are trans-fixed with this issue will always want to get TS women to throw nuance to the wind and admit that they are a man or to have them utter the mantra of "natal male" as a greeting to everyone they meet and that will not change. Trans people will continue on and shoulder being fake tricksters with a proclivity to rape who crawl out of the chasms of hell just fine. I will always want the best for those of us that are "demons, imps, and mutants" as eloquently described by a Florida lawmaker recently. In my life I have met some wise older trans women who survived times much worse than what we enjoy today. A common piece of advice is to never let other people tell you how to live your life and that society will always see trans women as less-than when compared to non-trans people. I still believe that today. You cannot convince someone to believe that you are a real person who has dignity and is not an emulation if they will always want to believe that they know everything about you better than you do yourself and everything is figured out (perhaps transsexuals are merely experiencing hysteria, hmm). If only life could be so simple.

Despite all of this, debate and sharing perspectives is always fun.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hi BiologyIsReal! I’m very grateful for the work you did as a mod and I’ve always expressed that! I don’t just feel like it’s helpful for me to insert myself into this disagreement between you two that has gone on for like a year. It would just cause more drama. Sorry if that offends you… <3

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guess I'll start at the end and work back - I hope I am as biased as you, because I don't think you were biased in the first place. That was never the issue, the issue was you just never took the kid gloves off, and seeing as a single post from a qt poster is gonna elicit 5 to 10 times the responses from gc posters, statistically they'd just be overwhelmed by under or unmoderated posts directed at them.

I understand you were put in a position where you had to moderate everything because no one else did. But at the end of the day when you made me mod I got access to the backlog of reported, untouched posts and holy shit it's a lot. If you were overwhelmed before then Idk why you didnt consider asking for help sooner. And if you weren't overwhelmed then there isn't really an excuse, is there?

And to add to the 'undermoderation' claim, at worst (outside of the spammer obviously and a few obvious, no brainer bans) you never punished the bad behaviour in any meaningful way. Put yourself in the shoes of a new qt poster who has just shown up and are trying to post but are getting passive-aggresively blamed for every sin every trans person has ever committed. Heaven forbid they get insulted, and then when you force the gc poster who did it to edit their comment they just edit in a dogwhistle instead (editted out my mean comment I still 100% stand by etc) and life goes on. Of course there isn't going to be a base of qt posters sticking around like that, it's just self harm at that point.

So yeah, Idk bio, you got the shit end of the stick, but you absolutely could have done things differently. End of the day, what's done is done, if trans posters show up now they'll at least have a better chance of sticking around than before, for whatever that is worth. I don't want to argue about your moderation any more than that, because i do legitimately feel bad that you took the brunt of it while the sub was the most active, but you really have to admit at some point that active rulebreaking was reported and ignored and that clearly drove away the small qt base that was here.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, thanks so much for not challenging the claim I did so little modding. So glad, I quit being a mod.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I saw who the banned user was and I can imagine what she could have said (I don't want to make assumptions since I didn't see her comment). I still stand for what I said, anyway, especially because she only comments once in a blue moon. And, really, yo do realize that GC posters receive way more push-back on most of the internet than what QT posters receive here. As I said, in many cases on the internet, or even irl, GC hear far far worse, particularly if they are women (QT has no problem recognizing them without pulling any pants down, funny that). For some women saying GC ideas has come with real life consequences, e.g. getting fired or actual violence (rather than just the typical threats). Yet GC keep discussing against all the odds. However, you say QT posters cannot handle some push-back in a small anonymous forum where we still have not to contradict how they perceive themselves? Sorry, but I am not impressed.

So, because I made you a mod it means I can never disagree with you?

Look, this fairy tale that I was such a biased mod that never bother to moderate is getting old. And it's not true. I was the most active mod by a long shot. Grixit disappeared as soon as he made me a mod (I should have never believed him and accepted his offer), quetzal showed up exactly and peaking was mostly absent and peaking absences had the worst timing, too. There never was so many QT posters here. Most threads were made by the spammer playing devil's advocate (you know the one) and who I must have banned dozens of times; but it seems that Spammer has gotten bored. And I was so "biased" that when a user complained about me to the mod mail, quetzal was forced to admit that I've been fair. I was so biased that I had Flippy calling me a rapist apologist (or something like that) because I warned him off in the very same thread where circling was asking for me to be removed from the "mod team" (i.e. just me). I was so biased I even offered you being a mod. Honestly, I wish I was as harsh as every single QT poster claims I was. It would had been easier for me.

Anyway, of course, what else an ex-biased mod like me could say? After all, the biased mod is going to defend herself against all the evidence. But I have to ask you, beris, if you think I was such a biased mod, why are you following my steps. You keep being very open about how you think GC posters are so mean and of course QT ran away from such hostile environment. Given that there is no GC mod anymore (no, peaking doesn't count), don't you worry that GC posters just leave? Well, I guess that is a way to attract QT posters. Although it may not work since GC posters are usually more resilient than that. And whatever the result, it doesn't change the fact you are, at least, as biased as me, beris.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS[M] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Hi Beris, sorry I’m not more active and I appreciate your efforts. You’ve done more moderation of GC posters (and in general for awhile) than anyone has. <3

I feel like GC here is so jaded, they often come out really strong and scare people away. The moderated poster in particular should just post this stuff on Ovarit and not here I feel like. I guess there might be something satisfying to say it to trans person, but it doesn’t help us keep people around.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Anyway, at 99% of the internet you have to walk on burning eggshells not to offend them, while they are free to say the most vile things. But I guess a little forum that is little bit less biased

You, specifically (since literally no other mods even visit besides peaking who might show up in two weeks again and see all this if we're lucky) moderated GC so little that at least one poster said they didnt even care about the rules and nothing happened. You don't think MAYBE at least in part that has something to do with a lack of trans posters? You gave me mod because I said I was unhappy with that, you can't be upset that I'm acting on it now. The banned poster is one of two who has been so vitriolic I can scroll their post history here and find rule breaks like 6 posts back, they dont get the benefit of gentle interpretation. There are countless radfem spaces on the internet she can use to vent her frustrations, but this should not be one of them.

Edit - to be clear I dont think you're wrong in that a lot of trans people have an active do not interact policy for themselves regarding radfems, but clearly not all do as sometimes trans posters do show up, but surely even you can admit that if theyre constantly met with longtime posters here who post in a way that actively conveys that they're unwelcome, they're going to leave.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

As if their comments don't exude anger too or as if they didn't misrepresent our arguments.

I don't know why you keep acting as if they don't come here because we are such lying and unredeemable jerks. This sub was created because the reddits administrators banned the old one for "transphobia". Most QT users celebrated the moved and they didn't want to come here. It's not a secret.

Anyway, at 99% of the internet you have to walk on burning eggshells not to offend them, while they are free to say the most vile things. But I guess a little forum that is little bit less biased in their favor is too much for them to handle.

Edit: I don't know what the removed comment said, I just thought this needed to be said.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]beris😎[M] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, I wonder why no trans people want to post here, surely it can't be the GC crew misinterpreting every single thing they say to use them as a sounding board for their own anger and frustration about them, regardless of whether or not it's relevant to the conversation in any way besides "trans person". You have plenty of spaces to rant about how badly trans people affect you on a day to day basis, if you can't put in a modicum of effort here to interact and have a conversation with them and instead just see this as a sanctioned space to unload all your anger directly at them, it's no wonder there arent trans posters here anymore.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, you keep talking about your lived experience, but what about your un-lived or whatever the antonym of lived experience may be? I mean, can there be personal experiences that are not lived? Does the phrase redundancy give the experiences more validity? Jokes aside, you're falling on a kind of exceptionalism. According to you, no one but trans identified people are qualified to talk about the "trans experiences"; nevertheless, you give yourself permission for matters that should be foreign to you, like the "lived experiences" of women. For how could you know you are a woman, otherwise? How could you know who, including yourself, is a woman when you are unable to define the word? You have no idea how it is to inhabitant a female body and all the biological and social experiences that arises from this fact.

Words have meanings that people have agreed upon in order to communicate with each other. Thus, I don't have a personal definition of "woman", rather I go by the one that is (still) in the dictionaries (the one that has been used by everyone before transactivists started lobbying to change it), which is based on the reality of sex. Because, here is the thing, reality doesn't change just because you give something a completely unrelated name. A donkey doesn't become an unicorn just because you say it's really an unicorn. I doesn't become one either even if you also fix a horn on its head.

Anyway, I didn't say you lack empathy for women because of our disagreements. I said it because you showed no concern for the very real impacts trasactivism is having on women. Instead, you worry that "modern transgender people" ruin it for you. What is more, you're worried for consequences that have yet to materialize for you. If it is true that you "pass" as a woman completely, I mean, you "pass" 100% and no one ever could tell you are actually "transsexual" by looking at you, then why do you mind if Republicans want to ban all males from the women's restrooms at all?

Something like requiring SRS surgery, 10 years on hormones, no transfers from male prisons, and no history of certain crimes makes sense to me as criteria for trans women in female prisons for instance.

None of these things would make them female, though. Furthermore, that was already tried. Old school transactivists in different countries lobbied to be legally recognized as the opposite sex and have access to sex-segregated spaces that weren't intended for them. It was a trap. Soon enough, that was not good anymore because not all trans identified people could afford "medical transition", for some it could not be accessed legally in their countries, some though it was cruel to be subjected to procedures that have all kinds of harsh side effects in order to be recognized as their "true selves", to say nothing of the "forced sterilization".

No. Self-ID doesn't happens overnight, but it's a gradual process that starts by ignoring biology. It never ends with just a few special cases.

I think that we need to be judged by our characters and not by having the original sin of being born male.

I agree with judging people by their characters. I don't think being born male is a sin. As there is, however, many males who do shitty things, women have plenty of reasons to be wary of them, especially because we cannot tell who are the bad ones. Any decent male would understand this and not make it personal.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You say I can't talk about trans identified people because I lack the "necessary" personal experience. If we follow this premise to its logical consequence, then history quickly becomes a off-ground subject. So why have you be talking about the experiences of historical groups of people with such an authoritative voice? Have you been there to back up your claims? How do you know people "transitioned" before there was a concept of "transgender"? How could they "transition" when there were no exogenous hormones or surgeries (other than castration) available?

I suggest you give a read at the links in my comment above. Transactivists often project modern ideas on ancient people and misrepresent other cultures. I guess it must be reassuring to think that there has always been trans identified people as we understand it now; but there is little, if any evidence, for such claims.

Also, you have no answered why we don't give liposuction to patients with anorexia nervosa nor why we don't amputate healthy arms for people who desperately want to get rid of them. What does make trans identified people so different that we must go against what would be regarded as common sense in any other mental health issue?

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am a small person at 5’4. There are bigger trans women for sure though.

You're still very likely stronger than the average woman. There are many males who are more vulnerable for a variety of reasons (e.g. very short height, old age, disability or minority status); however, women's spaces are not a refuge for any of them. Those spaces were built for women. Making special exemptions for some kinds of males defeats its purpose. Making cross-sex self-identification the special exemption is even worse because there is no objective way to determine who is a "true trans"; even you has admitted this much. In other words, allowing any trans identified male in women's spaces means, in practice, allowing all and every male there.

There are bigger trans women for sure though. I’m not going to go into a 3rd space to make a political point when I have been going into the right restroom already for decades without issue.

Without issue FOR YOU, you meant. But who cares what the plain women in those restrooms think about it, right? You're comfortable there and that is the only thing that matters.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Meant to say welcome also! Good to see more folks here especially those who are not purely GC. Glad to have you here!!!

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can GC and TS exist with compromises and will GC speak up if Republican men in power make it illegal to be trans and try and make the past a reality again?

Do you actually think this is happening? I don’t think it’s possible to make being a transsexual illegal, but I don’t love the attention it is getting. Trans activists are the reason for this of course. If they weren’t pushing ridiculous things then no one would be as focused on it I feel like. I don’t agree with a lot of things republicans do, but I don’t even think it’s possible for them to ban transsexuals. The Missouri law is positive because it adds more reasonable gatekeeping that should have been there all along I feel like. I received many years of therapy from all different types of therapists before I started medical transition. That’s not a bad thing. Your banning concern just seems so hyperbolic though… I just don’t see how it can be banned. 🤷‍♀️

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I miss our debate sub on Reddit. It was very active, and we had a ton of trans posters, both transsexuals/transmedicalists and TRAs.

It is my strongly held opinion that if GC people were in the same circumstances as people of trans experience then they would likely transition as well.

What do you mean by the same circumstances? I don't think my experience is all that different from many trans people. I've struggled with dissatisfaction with my sex my whole life, too. It would sure as hell be a lot easier to pass as a man. I'd fit into society much better that way. But my only reason for doing so would be misogyny, internalized and otherwise. I think GNC women and girls in particular are being taught by the trans movement that we should disavow womanhood if we aren't jumping for joy about being female. But we are female regardless of whether we like it. We are female regardless of whether we relate to femininity or feminine stereotypes. And we are female even if we hate how people treat us because of it.

Because I am not a natal male I can't speak to your experience as a transsexual who came from the opposite direction. But I believe that the explosion of trans identification among younger females is related to a terrible defect within society, not a defect within the women and girls themselves.

I think that humanizing the condition of gender dysphoria as something that, given the right circumstances, a person would rationally choose to transition because of is important when discussing these issues.

I have no wish to dehumanize people with gender dysphoria, but there is a huge problem in the trans movement because the "powers that be" have decided that no one needs dysphoria to be trans. Instead, it's an opt-in category, and anyone can identify as such for any reason. This leads to not only bad actors, but also impressionable young people jumping on the bandwagon who have no way to relate to transsexuals such as yourself. It also leads to people, particularly young women with co-morbidities and other mental health issues, transitioning to escape their distress which may be caused by something else entirely and would be better served by actual therapy, not affirmation.

What may be rational and logical for a "classic" transsexual like yourself is very different from the circumstances of, say, a 14 year old girl who presented with no gender distress in childhood, who was the victim of rape or sexual abuse, who suffers from an eating disorder, who has an autism diagnosis, etc. You are two different populations.

It seems to be a common belief that women of TS experience can never socially integrate into society as women and are always going to be complete outsiders… possibly also being the bestubbled owner of a harshly squared chin.

Not always, but it is certainly much, much harder for natal males to pass as female. And this is another circumstance where self-ID is harming transsexuals who have made significant efforts to pass. You have the AGP crowd who make little to no effort, late transitioners who often do not bother with surgery and sometimes even hormones. Whereas the HSTS transsexuals typically went down a much different path fairly early in life. Even with all that, I do think that few transsexuals pass as female in person. Perhaps at a glance for bathroom purposes, but not in any kind of sustained way. If someone doesn't pass, I do think a legally mandated and protected third space would be a good solution.

I find this mindset very common among people who are both supporters and detractors of TS people. However it degrades one’s quality of life to take things away from trans people such as resources for being able to transition (which we are currently seeing elements of in various states today)

Frankly, at this point, I am only concerned about minors. Adults can do what they wish. I do have feelings about how the psychiatric industry is handling adults with gender dysphoria. There seems to be zero gatekeeping, but as long as someone has given fully informed consent, what they do with their bodies is up to them. I may think it's deeply unethical for doctors to hand out testosterone or perform surgeries without any attempt at therapy, but I don't consider it a criminal matter.

It doesn’t seem like people who are critical of trans people would really care if that happened just so long as they at least “weren’t murdered”.

Well, I don't feel that way. I'm not a Republican, but I don't think the vast majority of Republicans feel that way either. I think moderates and conservatives for the most part want trans people to be able to live in society and have legal protections in areas like housing, employment, and public accommodation. I believe most people want reasonable accommodations made and protected third spaces for prisons and shelters and so on. The fact that we are seeing backlash is due to the refusal of TRAs to compromise. And as far as medical care is concerned, no one would be saying anything about it for adults if TRAs had not chosen child medicalization as their hill to die on.

Of course, as you know, not all trans people are TRAs. Many TRAs are heterosexual and non-transgender. Joe Biden, for one. Many of the worst TRAs are not trans themselves. And there are trans people like Blaire White who stand up for child protection. So I don't paint all trans people with the same brush. I am happy to ally with trans people for a common cause like child protection or mandating gender-neutral third spaces.

I apologize in advance for my unfeminine humor making light of our disagreements. My hormone shot is overdue and I’m feeling particularly indignant today.

Ha, you're fine. I've talked with plenty of trans people, and it's nice to be able to have civil discourse even if we don't end up agreeing on everything.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Unfortunately I don’t have time to go into depth about my views of trans/gender variant people in history. I will try and reply tomorrow with some more of my thoughts.

It was either John Money or Robert Stoller who reapplied the term for how someone self-perceives in the form of "gender identity" in their questionable researchers. Then some English speaking feminists thought it was a good idea talking about "gender" instead of sex-based roles and stereotypes.

Trans people have existed before the term transsexual and the identity-aligning concepts it came with when it began to be used. People who attended drag balls and those who usually worked as exotic show girls a la Coccinelle, Bambi, and Amanda Lear when they were a part of the Le Carrousel act in the 1950 were usual suspects. Even before there was a well defined concept for transgender people transitioned and lived with this condition.

After my entire life of hearing how trans people were just mentally ill men in dresses from the media and society, hearing this view yet again is not going to change my mind. Many feminist women complain about men being reductive to the female experience and speaking about things that they will never understand. It seems like many GC women will say this yet then talk about knowing trans people better than they know themselves. I believe that this kind of behavior is not just applicable to men but also to people talking about trans issues. It’s very easy to reduce the TS condition down to something that can easily be lumped in with the jackhammer wielding burly construction worker if he donned a dress but to me that isn’t something that can be taken seriously.

It’s very easy to question whether or not trans people should be put on hormones as an outsider. To be honest, if I wasn’t trans I probably would be thinking along the same lines. However, I’ve known plenty of people who have been destroyed as teenagers as a result of alternative therapies I see a lot of proposals for. Electroshock therapy used to be more common in the 90s for trans people. Non-affirmative therapy (more akin to conversion therapy) was as well. As a teenager I saw these things destroy numerous people. It’s not something that I’m going to say should be used instead. We know how to take care of ourselves by self medicating and we will do so if needed. I never took puberty blockers since they didn’t exist when I started, I just did the classic route of taking enough hormones to get the job done. You might know more about them than me.

Regarding detransitioners, in many decades I only ever knew one destransitioner and they re-transitioned. I think that in the past those that knew they needed treatment sought it out and it wasn’t as popularized or in vogue. It’ll probably go back to being like that again eventually I would imagine.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am a small person at 5’4. There are bigger trans women for sure though. I’m not going to go into a 3rd space to make a political point when I have been going into the right restroom already for decades without issue.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I claim the label woman because that is what people see me as in real life and what makes the most sense for me. I think that calling me a man is very reductive to my actual lived experiences since that is not what people see me as. It's fine if you tie being a woman to female biology, it doesn't bother me. In my real life I'm not going to self flagellate over it because people don't see it the same way. This is the same reason why I am tight lipped about my unique situation to almost all people. I am living my life normally with my husband of almost 20 years. In day to day life I do not think about the trans issue as much as you might think and live my life blending into society as I have always wanted. I have enough self respect to not talk about this to people and make a political show that I don’t believe in. People would love for trans women to make fools of themselves and that is not something I am going to do. If I believed I was a man I would have done all the same surgeries and lived my life the same way because my condition is not that of a professional female impersonator. I am myself and I don’t need anyone’s validation or approval. You can define “woman” however you see fit and I will continue to live my life.

I will be honest with you, to me it sounds like you have taken a lot of your views from the internet. That is your prerogative but I do not have the time nor energy to be plugged into all of the negative energy. I have experienced a lifetime of that already.

For crime statistics: In decades past gays used to say the same thing about us to prevent us from coming into to gay bars. That we were “too much trouble” and violent… the reality was that trans women were always messed with to the point of a scene being caused. I am not the ruler of trans people or guys who would have been mere crossdressers in the past.

Yourself, here, are showing a clear lack of concern for women all the while you expect we respect your wishes. Maybe you're the nicest person in the world and can't kill a fly, but there is no way for women to know this, but even if they could, privacy is important, too. Who are you (or anyone like you) to decide what women find acceptable in such vulnerable setting? Moreover, I've to highlight you keep focusing only on bathrooms when I mentioned several other settings. And you don't even registered the option for third spaces.

I have always had to look out for myself in my life. I don’t think it’s correct to say that because I don’t agree with how you think I should be living my life, I am lacking concern or empathy for women of non-trans experience. I could say the same thing about you towards “people like myself”. For other issues that aren’t related to trans issues do you also think that people who don’t agree with you are lacking empathy? I know for a fact that there are people in this world who do not wish for you to live your life the way you do, whatever that may mean, and you do not concern yourself with their opinions. I do not think you speak for everyone and because you want third spaces doesn’t mean we all have to agree.

I don’t think that we will engage in this conversation long enough to enumerate every single point we believe in regarding this issue. Since you mentioned other settings for things like prisons I don’t think the current situation is ideal either. Something like requiring SRS surgery, 10 years on hormones, no transfers from male prisons, and no history of certain crimes makes sense to me as criteria for trans women in female prisons for instance. Because I have some semblance of wanting the right thing for those that experience gender dysphoria does not mean that I have a lack of concern for others.

I think that we need to be judged by our characters and not by having the original sin of being born male.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I understand, but this study is from Sweden and they have a bigger welfare State than the US, too. And those stats are just saying they commit more violent crimes than females, which is true for every male group. And they are also keep being stronger and bigger than women. We cannot put aside all that if we're discussing their access to former women's only space. And, I repeat, they won't even entertain the possibility of third spaces. The very fact that so many are willing to ignore women's boundaries, even after being explained again and again the problems with their actions, doesn't look good, to say the least.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not going to get particularly involved in the conversation, but I would caution against taking crime statistics at face value. If trans people in general are significantly poorer than the general population, comparing their crime statistics to the general population rather than their own income group is a red flag for me as a non-white woman in a country where that sort of thing is done on the regular by racists with crime stats from my own race.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please tell me if I’m not correct but I sense that you see trans women as being the exact same as men with the same socialization.

I think I've made my views pretty clear given the constraints that I mentioned on other post. If you think you had different experiences from both men and women, then why do you claim the label "woman" for yourself? Why do you not choose any other label? How are you a "woman", anyway? We have take your word for it, but you don't offer neither proof nor justification. If biology doesn't matter, then what is a woman? What is a man? Can you really define either of without recurring to sexist stereotypes?

As for how society treat trans identified people... Well, trans identified males are very prominent in transactivism, many occupying leading roles. Their stories are always believed, they are always given the benefit of the doubt, their "identities" always respected. Even in cases they commit horrible crimes, correctly sexing them (aka "misgendering") is viewed as far worse than whatever crime they committed. They are given every thing they ask for, may it be hormones, cosmetic surgeries, access to former women's only spaces, and so on. Dissenters, especially dissenting women, are viewed as nazis. We are even supposed to pretend they will be able to get pregnant within a few years.

Meanwhile, we only hear about trans identified females when: a) they got pregnant; b) they take part in sports... in a female league...; or c) they commit a crime, except people don't care about "misgendering" here (see the recent case of the Nashville shooter, for example). Yet, they so "much" male privilege that trans identified males can talk over them. What does this tell you?

I’m not sure about what you mean by rape threats and how that relates to me. I have never threatened anyone with rape and am confused about how I am involved in that.

I meant that dissenting woman have to deal with rape threats quite often. You can find them on the internet quite easily. I didn't say that was something you personally did, but that is something that happens and said women are given a once of sympathy because they are "transphobes", you know? Here is issue, trans identified males' comfort are always privileged over women's discomfort and safety. Yes, women's safety, because there is no way to tell who is a "true trans" and the evidence suggest trans identified males retain male patterns of criminality (*).

Yourself, here, are showing a clear lack of concern for women all the while you expect we respect your wishes. Maybe you're the nicest person in the world and can't kill a fly, but there is no way for women to know this, but even if they could, privacy is important, too. Who are you (or anyone like you) to decide what women find acceptable in such vulnerable setting? Moreover, I've to highlight you keep focusing only on bathrooms when I mentioned several other settings. And you don't even registered the option for third spaces.

You ask for empathy, but you don't seem willing to offer any to women.

(*) Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.

I think I've written enough for today. Further replies from my part may take a while...

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My point was that the technology for making exogenous hormones and performing cosmetic surgeries on secondary sex characteristics is pretty new. People at early 19th century or even more earlier couldn't risk everything for something that was not possible. I think you're projecting a lot of modern experiences and concepts in ancient people. What is even "gender-variant people" and what Sumerians could know about them when until mid 20th century gender was a grammar concept? It was either John Money or Robert Stoller who reapplied the term for how someone self-perceives in the form of "gender identity" in their questionable researchers. Then some English speaking feminists thought it was a good idea talking about "gender" instead of sex-based roles and stereotypes. Also, English speakers, especially American, gradually became more and more uncomfortable using the word "sex" when talking about biological sex and started using "gender" as an euphemism. And because English is the most studied and influential language in the world and, probably, also the most translated language, these newer uses of the word "gender" extended far beyond the borders of English speaking countries.

And speaking of language, I think it's telling that, while you can find a word for a woman or a man in every language, even ancient languages, there are no ancient equivalent for "transsexuals" or "transgender". At most, you may find some words for so called "third genders" in certain cultures (like the hijra in India), that are not equivalent with each other because said terms are culture-specific, which suggest "transsexual status" or lack thereof is not something universal and fundamental like being a woman or a man. Furthermore, I've see no evidence that cultures with so called "third genders" recognized and treated said people as the opposite sex.

The Myths about the Mythical Indian Hijra

The sex binary is not a ‘Western construct,’ gender identity is

You were the one who classified trans identified people in two groups, those who are legitimate as yourself and the ones who are just following a trend and were ruining it for the "legitimate" ones. I was just following your lead here. Funny, you mention Ray Blanchard because, despite being so maligned by transactivists of either group, he actually thinks AGP transidentified males are "true trans", who suffer from the most painful gender dysphoria and he neither thought about asking women what we think about it. So, who can tell who is a "true trans"? Even you admit there is not an objective test and is a matter of given off the right "energy"? That is not scientific at all and the inability to determine who has actually gender dysphoria is the first crack in the field.

Something you have not addressed is how gender dysphoria is treated very differently from any other mental health issue. People with anorexia nervosa go to great lengths in their self-destructive behavior; however, nobody thinks is wise to recommend them for a liposuction or assist them by any other means in their search for their "perfect" weight. Some people want their healthy arm or leg amputated, sometimes they ampute them themselves with all the risks that it implies. Yet, you won't find many people recommending amputation as an aceptable "treatment for said people. So, why should we act differently regarding gender dysphoria? Especially because there is no way for humans to change one's sex, neither naturally nor artificially. Sex is determined at conception and you cannot reverse all the changes that are triggered because of it. Everyone is either female or male, even people with DSDs (intersex is an outdated and misleading term), many of which are not misidentified at birth.

Finally, regarding the supposed standards for this field of medicine, doctors working on it are notorious for their bad designed experiments and the big rates of drop-out. Sometimes they cannot even keep basic data from their patients, as we've seen in the judicial review of the Tavistock clinic brought by Keira Bell in the UK. Even after decades prescribing hormones, there is still no proof they work as a treatment for gender dysphoria. GnRH agonists (aka "puberty blockers") are prescribed off-labeled for trans identified minors ignoring their serious potential and reported side effects. What is worse, they are described as "reversible" despite this claim defies all we know about pharmacology or human development. The only basis for this bold claim is their use for patients with central precocious puberty, which is a very different population, for which there are objective diagnostic criteria and its usage is very different, too. But the fact children with precocious puberty will resume puberty after stop taking GnRH agonists is not the same as these drugs not having side effects. Surgeries are even worse because experimentation is more rampant in that field.

Moreover, there is a total lack of curiosity for the changing demography of patients with gender dysphoria. Also, there is anecdotal evidence that detransitioners often don't go back to their doctors. This suggest there needs to be more research on this area. Unfortunately, academics and professionals questioning the official script are often prevented from doing their jobs.

A live experiment on children': Mail on Sunday publishes the shocking physicians' testimony that led a High Court judge to ban NHS's Tavistock clinic from giving puberty blocking drugs to youngsters as young as 10 who want to change sex

Antiandrogen or estradiol treatment or both during hormone therapy in transitioning transgender women - spoiler, the authors of this review couldn't find any study that could pass their inclusion criteria and point out the big gap between research and clinical practice.

New Systematic Reviews of Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones Published by NICE

Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care

One Year Since Finland Broke with WPATH "Standards of Care"

All Six of Sweden's Pediatric Clinics Meet to Discuss a Cautious Stance Toward Pediatric Gender Transitions

As a Former Dean of Harvard Medical School, I Question Brown’s Failure to Defend Lisa Littman - about the woman who coined the term Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

We Need Balance When It Comes To Gender Dysphoric Kids. I Would Know | Opinion (by Scott Newgent)

Detransition-Related Needs and Support: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey

Proposal to research 'trans regret' rejected by university for fear of backlash, claims psychotherapist

AAP 'Silencing Debate' on Gender Dysphoria, Says Doctor Group

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I appreciate the welcome and reply. It’s too bad that more people don’t contribute more since it seems like the discussion isn’t that bad here. Unfortunately these days everyone is extremely siloed into their own communities and aren’t able to cross over to “the other side” in a reasonable nor cordial manner.

It is my strongly held opinion that if GC people were in the same circumstances as people of trans experience then they would likely transition as well. They would also want to live their life normally and with dignity and would have a very different perspective than what they have now. The same goes for any kind person including if a trans person were instead born and lived their life as described by the horrific three letter epithet beginning with the letter C and ever so terribly ending with S. I think that humanizing the condition of gender dysphoria as something that, given the right circumstances, a person would rationally choose to transition because of is important when discussing these issues.

We seem to agree on the bathroom issue. For a good amount of people in the GC cult (just kidding) it appears like a lot of the disagreements on that front are due to whether or not TS women are able to pass. It seems to be a common belief that women of TS experience can never socially integrate into society as women and are always going to be complete outsiders… possibly also being the bestubbled owner of a harshly squared chin. From my personal experience I think that this issue is more nuanced than that and there are many different realities for the trans experience depending on how well one blends into the background of society.

No one, not the most conservative Republican or the most radical of radical feminists, wants to see trans people physically hurt or killed. The only people who want that are violent men, the gay bashers who have been going after GNC males since long before the trans movement started.

I find this mindset very common among people who are both supporters and detractors of TS people. However it degrades one’s quality of life to take things away from trans people such as resources for being able to transition (which we are currently seeing elements of in various states today) or making it technically illegal to use the public restroom that makes sense for how you look. While it’s not something that is tantamount to genocide it doesn’t create an environment that is that suitable for trans people in their own eyes. To extend that point further, trans people could surely live in insane asylums but it’s not much of a life. It doesn’t seem like people who are critical of trans people would really care if that happened just so long as they at least “weren’t murdered”. Maybe I’m reaching there but the “not my problem as long as I get my way even though it doesn't affect me beyond the realm of the conceptual '' attitude seems to be pretty common in various online discourse. In fact, on other places that I have read GC comments, variants of “not my problem” seems to be a common catchphrase to bleat after expressing a wish to restrict care that from a trans individual's perspective is critically important.

I apologize in advance for my unfeminine humor making light of our disagreements. My hormone shot is overdue and I’m feeling particularly indignant today.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Uh, you're welcome. Yeah, I write a lot and I'll keep writing a lot because I've read your four comments. It'll just take a while...

I'll repeat what I said before: disagreeing with you, even disagreeing with how you view yourselves is not the same as dehumanizing you or wishing your non-existence. I see how one could interprete my phrase "people like you" that way, but I meant exactly people like you, i.e male-attracted "transsexual" male who "transitioned" in times of more "gatekeeping", which was the group you were focusing on since you were talking about from your own experience. Saying that was a mouth-foul, and it involves several ideological-based words that I don't like using because they contradict both my beliefs and my knowledge. Language is important when discussing these issues, unfortunately, what I can say here is limited by the sub norms. Even if that not were the case, the one time that I spoke honestly, with a trans identified user who got more offended by my references to said user's sex rather than by my more harsher criticisms, was such a headache that lasted a whole week or more that I don't wish to repeat. So, in short, I end up using a lot of clunky phrases as "people like you" in this sub.

Anyway, I don't speak from a place of prejudice and ignorance as you suppose. I've spent good deal thinking about these issues even before joining this sub two years ago, really. Also, I've listened to what trans identified people and their supporters have to say, both here and elsewhere. Finally, I know a good deal about the human body and I can tell when something does not add up. And the so called "gender medicine" doesn't add up. I'll expand this last point in another comment.

Moreover, saying I, too, would be forced to transition if I were to live your experiences is a bold claim since you don't know anything about me. And, you know what, because I've a natural deep voice for a woman, I have been mistaken for a boy over the phone and inter-phone a few times; plus, some people have assumed I was male on the internet, where you don't know how someone else looks. Yet, no once this has caused me an identity crisis because my identity don't depends on how other people perceive me: I am a woman. I know this for a fact and I don't need any affirmation, even though I'm not a stereotypical "feminine" woman. When I said gender dysphoria diagnostic criteria relied a lot on stereotypes, I was not joking; and this is specially true for children. If I were to take those "tests" as a child, some may even decide that I were a "trans kid". I was somewhat a non-conforming, but not so much; that is how bad I'm saying those "diagnostic criteria" are. Just take a look at the parents of famous trans identified children this stuff by pointing out how their 3-years-olds played with the wrong toys or liked the wrong clothes. It's all about stereotypes.

You mentioned the frightening stories from South America. Well, I'm from a South American country, Argentina, where things are apparently so bad that trans identified people have, supposedly a life expectancy of around 35 years (transactivists certainly love throwing that number around on local Media). I call nonsense. Firstly, they ignore possible confounding factors like insecurity, the economic situation, homophobia (as far as I can tell, many trans identified people here are same-sex attracted) or prostitution. Okay, they actually acknowledges the prostitution issue, but they act like this is some great proof of transphobia. In reality, there are more women involved in prostitution, but when is plain women being raped, beat or murdered no one bats an eye.

So, what local transactivists did about this? Fighting the sex trade and pornography? Not, of course not. Instead they lobbied for the gender identity law, that in 2012 recognized their right to lie about their sex on official documents and elsewhere, a being given free exogenous hormones, cosmetic surgeries to alter the appearance of their secondary sex characteristics, among other "treatments" like voice training (I have no words...) and body-hair removal (for goodness sake, why can't they just shave?!). The lobby started in 2007 and they got all this in a few years. Meanwhile, abortion was only legalized here in 2020 and with far less support.

And transactivists gave the most absurd arguments, too. For example, they claimed they were exclude from health care and voting. How so? Well, they didn't like to use their previous names or put themselves in the sex-segregated quees when voting. It was both triggering and dangerous as it meant "outing" themselves. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous, both because they were the ones self-excluding themselves and because they don't "pass" today, less so back then when altering their appearance involved more money and traveling abroad. And that the State has to pay for all those cosmetic changes with our screwed economy and our overwhelmed and underfunded public health system... This makes me mad, more so because it's the newest form of colonialism as it's developed countries who pioneered this stuff and have exporting it elsewhere and now people there can pretend they are anti-imperialists by supporting it.

Furthermore, although the law said nothing about trans identified males being granted access to formerly women's only spaces; in practice, they have got this because, otherwise, they wouldn't being treated as the opposite sex as the law commands. Of course, this was not mentioned when they were lobbying for the law (it would have been too much, back then). "It's only a minor change in our identity cards, that won't affect anyone else", we were told. For that end, they educated journalists on "inclusive language", among other things, and they were more than happy to comply and lie to the public and not ask hard questions.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply. I believe that eventually this particular facet of the culture war will calm down. There will always be people who negatively fixate on trans people for various reasons but transsexuals also need to live a life as well regardless of how others attempt to control and restrict it.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

(4/4) Trans women will always be here and unfortunately they aren’t going to agree with you and are going to continue doing things necessary that we think we need to live our lives. I do believe that while I’m not the same as a non-trans woman, I am a kind of woman regardless of what others think. I suppose many more fundamentalist adherents to various religions have an even worse fate in mind for “people like me”. To survive in the past one had to adopt this mentality. In the past trans women had to be tough as nails to live our lives. We are a class of people that will continue living this life to the bitter end and unfortunately that is something that people will have to deal with. I have heard first hand accounts of trans women avoiding getting forcibly lobotomized in the 1960s by relatives who were trying to commit them. In that world they survived with their brain in-tact and lived their lives. The same will continue to happen today regardless of what the future holds.

As a transsexual I am not living in costume. I cannot take away the decades of hormones, surgeries, silicone, and my natural tendencies. I am and always have been myself and implying that I can just live as a man in the world is deeply misguided and incorrect. From my perspective I am no more in costume than you being in costume by not taking testosterone yourself.

—

Hopefully this conveyed my views and experiences accurately. I hope that I didn’t skip any points you made since this was a lot and thanks again for sharing your perspective!

[1] https://zagria.blogspot.com/2008/10/caroline-cossey-1954-model.html

[2] https://zagria.blogspot.com/2014/05/octavia-st-laurent-1964-2009-performer.html

[3] https://zagria.blogspot.com/2009/10/luiza-bambine-moreira-1964-model.html

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Mock

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Ashley

[6] https://zagria.blogspot.com/2011/06/amanda-lepore-1967-model-performer.html

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(3/4)

you're ignoring the fact [you] people will never have the same experiences than females, regardless of how much hormones you take, how many surgeries you undergo or much effort you put on emulating the stereotypical dressing and mannerisms of women, and so on.

Please tell me if I’m not correct but I sense that you see trans women as being the exact same as men with the same socialization. I do not agree with that and believe that trans women have a unique socialization and experience that is separate from non-trans men and women. It seems to be an important point to those that are GC to be able to lump TS in with normal men to be able to make points. I will never agree with that.

I am myself, not an emulation or copy. I transitioned to live my life as I am and don’t owe anybody anything. I am a transsexual woman. I think that reducing us down to being the exact same as men is not correct. I think it’s comical to think that a normal looking trans woman lives the same life as a man in how people treat you and how you fit into society. It’s easy to do online or by saying that you knew a few 50 year old guys who put on a wig and never looked back but for those of us where this has always been us I will never accept that as being anything other than misinformed.

you have not considered at all how the bathroom's issue affects women, not only in the US, but in all the other countries where "affirmation" has become the norm. Indeed, it seems you feel threatened by "modern transgender people" because women may assert their boundaries with all trans identified males. Nevertheless trans identified males, BOTH "old school transsexuals" and the "modern transgender people", have inserted themselves in former women-only spaces, not only in public bathrooms, but also changing rooms, spas, sports, hospital wards, refugees, prisons, and so on. Women were not consulted for this and when we tried to assert our boundaries you all (i.e. both groups of trans identified males) you kept going on. You STILL keep going on. In some cases, some of you have responded to dissenting women with threats of rape and violence, trying to get them fired from their jobs or "cancelled", or even with actual violence.

Both men and women don’t want us in their spaces. There are always going to be women who are not comfortable with trans women in the restroom. I personally think that you need to go to the restroom that makes sense for you to go in based on how you look. That is what I have always done and will continue to do. I am an individual and need to look out for myself first, I cannot perfectly satisfy the wishes that everyone has for how I live my life. If I tried to do that I would never have transitioned in the first place.

As a teenager I survived being beaten up. I’ve been stabbed and assaulted. This was unprovoked at the hands of boys and men. This wasn’t that uncommon for trans women back then. I will continue to live as I am and that is not something that I am going to change.

I’m not sure about what you mean by rape threats and how that relates to me. I have never threatened anyone with rape and am confused about how I am involved in that.

Both groups seems completely disinterested in how much their actions hurts women. Both groups seems completely disinterested on how women may find offensive to be defined based on a bunch of sexist stereotypes or how offensive is to see our biology and our experiences be treated like a costume. Both groups ignore also how much their actions are setting the hard-earned women's rights back. [...] And yet you won't go to the men's bathrooms. [...] Apparently third spaces are othering and akin to racial segregation. Funny, though, how we women don't feel othered by not sharing the bathrooms with men, don't you think?

For most of my adult life I haven’t interacted with other trans women. I’ve been an individual who has been able to live my life more comfortably by transitioning and just living my life. While you may think that I am hurting women as a whole by going into the restroom (I’m fine with that), I don’t agree with it. There are men in the world who don’t want to share a restroom with me either if I was so inclined to go into one. Does your opinion matter more than theirs? In my life I have to look after myself first and foremost and there have always been people who are against trans people and want to restrict them as much as possible. To live life as a trans person you have to realize and accept that (and people are allowed to think it) but I’ve dealt with enough people who are against me despite not knowing me that it doesn’t affect me. I believe if you were a trans person yourself you would likely come to similar conclusions. Most places do not have a third space bathroom. I have enough self respect to use the restroom that I look like I belong for and not make a political point that others would like me to make.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(2/4)

You focused a lot on how much people like you need all those medical procedures and that you all were/are willing to risk everything for them; unlike the modern "transgender people", who are only following a trend. However, if people like you would have born at the early 19th century, you couldn't have access them not matter what because they didn't exist. So, how much is this need innate? How much has said need arised by the very new existence (in terms of human history) of said procedures?

I think that there are lots of trans women today that are not following trends. However I do see a second kind of person who is claiming to be a part of this condition when it is very clearly not their experience or the correct thing in life for them. Gender dysphoria and changing one's secondary sex characteristics is central to a transsexuals life and saying you are trans and speaking for all transsexuals in the public without it is deeply offensive to those who have died or otherwise been seriously affected as a result of this condition.

Regardless of what you think of Magnus Hirschfeld, the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft certainly collected sexology works describing peoples with gender non conforming presentation dating back in the 19th century which were subsequently all burned by the Nazis. There have been books written about (what I will refer to as) gender-variant experiences in the late 19th century New York such as Autobiography of an Androgyne. Additionally, even throughout western history we can see cross-sex identities which have historically been classified as “just” being “more homosexual history” rather than as a separate idea. While we cannot color these historical accounts with modern language certainly there have always been people who would take hormone therapy if it existed that have been around since the beginning of history. We can see both gender-variant male and female sexed peoples documented in many Sumerian writings which are among the oldest written works that we have in general, regardless of the trans topic. In the early 20th century in Russia and Germany there have been documented medical procedures for trans people (this is not confusing these operations with intersex ones).

To this end there will always be trans people who transition and have medical procedures. Trans care originated because trans people were not able to do these things legitimately and were acting out of desperation. This isn’t something new or will ever change. I have witnessed horrific side effects from bad medical care in the trans community and pushing it backwards to how it was previously is extremely short sighted. I have seen brow bones that were shaved down so thin that the sinus shattered when bumping into someone else. There are many cases of holes being left in the sinus bone that caused the skin to bulge up due to air bubbles when breathing through the nose. Jaw bones and gums disintegrating causing all of a trans woman’s bottom teeth to fall out from being poorly shaved. Countless complications and even deaths from silicone injections. Strokes from shoddy doctors, the list goes on and on. I haven’t even mentioned SRS surgery and the horrors that manipulative doctors have inflicted on the trans population. My own best friend took her life as a result of a botched SRS surgery that she was pressured into having on a budget. Contrary to the beliefs of lots of GC people, many trans people are satisfied with their SRS results… I am myself personally. All of these were because trans people were desperate enough to seek care from doctors that weren’t well trained, didn’t care, and wanted to exploit trans women since they are an easy target. Almost all of these surgeries happened outside of the US by unqualified doctors that trans women felt desperate enough to turn to.

I disagree that back then there was actual "gatekeeping". I've read the old diagnostic criteria and they still relied on sexist stereotypes, unsurprisingly. [...] once you rule out biology to define who is a woman or a man, you're only left with stereotypes. [...] "gatekeeping" could be bypassed if you have enough money and [...] middle aged males who were sexually attract to females, have fathered children and had very "manly" jobs declaring suddenly they were "transsexuals" and got all the hormones and surgeries done. So, how can you tell who is and who is not a "true trans".

The Harry Benjamin Standards of Care did include sexist stereotypes. However, adding more checks and balances to the transition process is something that we could benefit from in many places that provide trans care. It will always be possible for trans people to self medicate with hormones but in the ideal scenario some semblance of psychological oversight is not a bad thing. I think that even though it wasn’t perfect there were some good elements of the gender care protocols of yesteryear.

I do not agree with transitioning after having children and being married. I don’t think that’s right but that is not something that I have experience with since I have only ever been with men my entire life. While it seems to be clear to me that you don’t accept trans people as being a separate group from “normal men”, I have come to know that we are. I don’t have the answers to solve everything but I do know that we are a real group of people and while there are problems right now but we aren’t going to go away.

I think that it is easy to classify all trans people as being in one or two buckets such as what Ray Blanchard does with the HSTS/AGP distinction but I think that is reductive to the condition. I think that there are many causes for transsexualism that we don’t fully understand yet and it’s not just one or two simple conditions. Much of the sexological research on trans people has been done by men with questionable motives. I think that we are an extremely varied group of people and it is reductive to simplify the condition down to an easy to digest number of causes.

Historically in the transsexual community the mentality was that you either “got it or you don’t” based on energy one gives off. The nebulous “know it when I see it” mentality is caused by trans people facing the mystery of our condition. From a first person perspective living this life does have an element of nebulousness that needs to be accepted. It’s difficult to navigate and fully realize yourself while trying to deal with the “why” of gender dysphoria during the first decade of transition. People always want a simple explanation like “they must have been molested as a child” or “they’re just a self hating gay” but I have come to realize that is much too simple.

All of this, plus the shoddy science done by the doctors working on "gender medicine", the fact that not other mental issue is treated the same way (e.g. nobody recommends liposuction for people with anorexia nervosa) and the well-known health problems produced for these elective surgeries and the usage of exogenous hormones is enough, I think, to question the wisdom of "gender affirmement treatments" for anyone but, ESPECIALLY, for children and teens.

Trans healthcare started being standardized because trans women will go to any length to get these procedures out of desperation. To many trans people there is nothing more important than these things in their life. When a person is pushed to that level of desperation things get ugly when doctors that are known to exploit the trans population get involved. That isn’t something that is going to change and throwing up your hands saying you don’t like it and not providing any alternatives to that, I don’t think, is the right solution to a problem that isn’t going to go away. In the past trans women had to travel to other countries to get operations done and many still do. That’s been the case even since the days of the French Le Carrousel.

I want to reduce people’s harm, not increase it because transsexuals will continue to exist regardless of what legislation happens. In the 1980s when crossdressing laws were in effect we just got arrested over and over and hoping that wearing a male watch with the clothes we wanted was sufficient enough to say we were in male clothing. The rule of thumb for jail that I was always told by other trans women who have gone was that you have a couple days to find a man to be your boyfriend to have protection so that you wouldn’t get forcibly raped but could at least prepare for sex with the man that is protecting you. This isn’t me exaggerating but rather relaying true facts from trans women of the past. That is if they let you into gen pop and didn’t keep you in solitary. I have heard of trans women going insane because of being raped too many times in prison and being put alone in solitary for years at a time. This was in the early 2000s.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]rainynights[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(1/4) Firstly I want to thank you for taking the time to write out your perspective on this issue. You have written a lot that I want to reply to so apologies in advance for how long this comment is. I don’t expect anyone to read it all if I’m going to be completely honest but it is out there as a sequel to my original post :-). I’ve had to break it into multiple comments. We definitely disagree and hopefully you are alright with that. Seeing that there is a lot of emotion and vitriol tied up in discussions of transgenderism I don’t plan on changing any opinions. I sure think you will have a hard time changing mine since I have gone to hell and back to live in this world and am at peace with my life. I understand and respect your position but will never agree with it since my life experiences have informed me otherwise. I do not expect those that haven’t experienced something similar to fully understand the issues that are central to a trans person’s life. I want to both listen and share my perspective as well as have a good back and forth.

Something that I think is very common is for people to dehumanize trans individuals and see them as characters or some kind of unified collective. I could be wrong but I sense this sentiment in your post with your usage of statements like “people like you”. Trans people are individuals and we are driven by the condition of gender dysphoria. I very strongly believe that if you personally faced the same issues and reality that a transsexual woman faced you would also transition and want to stand up for yourself in society since we are all humans with different experiences and starting points in this life.

It is my opinion that the trans population conceptually lives on many different fault line boundaries. These boundaries demarcate ideas in language, society, and socialization. Central to the GC/TS debate are the differences between male and female in the aforementioned categories. In many cases trans people don’t fit perfectly on exactly one side of these boundaries and exist on both. Society has been built upon these boundaries and cracks start to form when people such as transsexuals feel like we have no choice but to live our life eschewing them. I believe that there will always be disagreements for how to deal with transsexuals since the situation is complex.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like quite the overstatement. First, who exactly did want people like you not to exist? Disagreeing with your views [...] is not the same as wanting you not to exist.

A lot of people are not aware of, have not experienced, or have forgotten how bad things used to be for trans people in the United States. I can’t speak for those in other countries since that is not my experience but have heard frightening stories from people in South America. This extends to LGBT people in general but trans women especially had unique problems and were also not welcomed in LGB spaces in the past since they “didn’t know what to do” with us. These issues were not merely disagreements but significant obstacles that trans women had to overcome. When trans women such as Caroline Cossey[1], Octavia St. Laurent[2], Roberta Close[3], Janet Mock[4], April Ashley[5], and Amanda Lepore[6] overcame these obstacles and made it big it was amazing to us who never thought we could achieve something so fantastical in life as trans women.

Not too long ago it was very common to get let go from jobs if a trans person’s trans status was revealed. In fact, I have experienced this first hand. The same goes for housing. Many trans individuals were forced into survival sex work and that image has persisted with trans women being strongly associated with porn. The 1980s and 90s were particularly unforgiving to trans women with the majority of us living in bad situations. Even today trans women are among the lowest if not the lowest income group of people in the United States. It was not uncommon for police to give you a hard time as a transsexual and many police forces flat out refused to investigate trans murders deeply if at all. Many men have gotten away with killing and attacking trans women in the past and our murders were relegated to being just “another dead tranny hooker” not worthy of serious investigation. This wasn’t “only” relegated to trans sex workers either since it is quite common to explain away these deaths as them “asking for it” by those who dislike the trans population. Even someone as famous as Eddy Murphy, a known chaser and abuser of trans sex workers within the trans community, got away with the murder of a trans woman named Shalimar Seiuli. As recently as the early 00s and especially back in the 1980s and 90s I personally know of cases where doctors would refuse to treat trans women because they didn't want to be associated with trans patients. Trans people were seen as untrustworthy for not being honest about their sex; what else could they be lying about? Doctors didn’t want to deal with that and it sounds like perhaps you could still agree with this viewpoint. Many trans women were refused treatment when presenting with cases of AIDs, cancer, complications with injections of free floating silicone, etc. This caused a significant amount of deaths in the trans community that is not well talked about today.

In the media trans people were commonly the subject of jokes and not taken seriously. It was hard to move beyond stereotypes that made trans women out to be some kind of pornographic concept as well as murderers and people that shouldn’t be trusted. The late Jerry Springer, another famous piece of trans-sex-worker-consuming trade, made a lot of money exploiting poor trans women to come onto his show and make fools of themselves for a quick buck. A lot of the stereotypes about being deceivers, in my opinion, are directly tied to the release of the book The Transsexual Empire which significantly hurt the image and standing of transsexuals in the US in the late 1970s due to anti-trans activism. I view this activism as contributing to the death of many trans women in the late 20th century through the various avenues I have previously outlined.

All of this combined created an environment where I am comfortable saying that there are times in the not-too-distant past where large swaths of American society did not want transsexual people to exist and would rather ignore any issues they had. Things have changed very dramatically in the past couple decades but the true nature of people is still there.

Second, exogenous hormones and elective surgeries can only alter your appearance so much. [...] I remain skeptical that someone could fool ALL the people ALL the time. IME, people like you not only often overestimate how much they pass irl [...] but they also underestimate how much people are willing to play along [...]

This view has helped many transsexuals blend into the woodwork in the past and it will continue to help us into the future. Certainly what you said is true for many trans people but it can be surprising. In the 80s and 90s trans girls self medicated on the streets with DES, Premarin, or if you were so lucky, the black market German Estradiol Valerate being peddled in 1990s NYC that had rave reviews. After a while you could see a doctor and blow their mind with how you looked enough to get them to write a prescription of legitimate hormones. It was known that if you could walk with no makeup in a bad neighborhood during the day in the past you were not going to get clocked so easily.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I use the term transsexual instead of transgender as it connects me to the strong and resilient women in the past who defied a society that wanted them to not exist and communicates that changing my secondary sex characteristics to be that of the opposite sex is paramount to my condition.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like quite the overstatement. First, who exactly did want people like you not to exist? Disagreeing with your views, even how you view yourselves is not the same as wanting you not to exist. Second, exogenous hormones and elective surgeries can only alter your appearance so much. For some, it may increase the likelihood that other people mistake them for the opposite sex, but only up to a certain point; and I remain skeptical that someone could fool ALL the people ALL the time. IME, people like you not only often overestimate how much they pass irl (which doesn't come up with filters, convenient angles and so on), but they also underestimate how much people are willing to play along whether for thinking is the "polite" thing to do, for fear of negative consequences or for not wanting to go against the flow.

Putting the matter of "passing" aside, there are other things that you've not considered. You focused a lot on how much people like you need all those medical procedures and that you all were/are willing to risk everything for them; unlike the modern "transgender people", who are only following a trend. However, if people like you would have born at the early 19th century, you couldn't have access them not matter what because they didn't exist. So, how much is this need innate? How much has said need arised by the very new existence (in terms of human history) of said procedures?

Furthermore, I disagree that back then there was actual "gatekeeping". I've read the old diagnostic criteria and they still relied on sexist stereotypes, unsurprisingly. It could not have been any other way because once you rule out biology to define who is a woman or a man, you're only left with stereotypes. What is more, any "gatekeeping" could be bypassed if you have enough money and that is how even in the good old days of gatekeeping you had middle aged males who were sexually attract to females, have fathered children and had very "manly" jobs declaring suddenly they were "transsexuals" and got all the hormones and surgeries done. So, how can you tell who is and who is not a "true trans". If there less people like you back then is likely because these procedures were more expensive, less available, less advertised, and less people willing to play along among other things.

All of this, plus the shoddy science done by the doctors working on "gender medicine", the fact that not other mental issue is treated the same way (e.g. nobody recommends liposuction for people with anorexia nervosa) and the well-known health problems produced for these elective surgeries and the usage of exogenous hormones is enough, I think, to question the wisdom of "gender affirmement treatments" for anyone but, ESPECIALLY, for children and teens.

You also complain about other people dismissing the experiences of people like you; however, besides focusing so much on "passability" and overestimating the ability to tell "true trans" apart from the trenders, you're ignoring the fact people will never have the same experiences than females, regardless of how much hormones you take, how many surgeries you undergo or much effort you put on emulating the stereotypical dressing and mannerisms of women, and so on.

But you worry about Republicans and bathrooms. I don't care for Republicans. I don't have any good thing to say about them nor about the Democrats (I'm not American). Yet, by your post it seems you have not considered at all how the bathroom's issue affects women, not only in the US, but in all the other countries where "affirmation" has become the norm. Indeed, it seems you feel threatened by "modern transgender people" because women may assert their boundaries with all trans identified males. Nevertheless trans identified males, BOTH "old school transsexuals" and the "modern transgender people", have inserted themselves in former women-only spaces, not only in public bathrooms, but also changing rooms, spas, sports, hospital wards, refugees, prisons, and so on. Women were not consulted for this and when we tried to assert our boundaries you all (i.e. both groups of trans identified males) you kept going on. You STILL keep going on. In some cases, some of you have responded to dissenting women with threats of rape and violence, trying to get them fired from their jobs or "cancelled", or even with actual violence.

Both groups seems completely disinterested in how much their actions hurts women. Both groups seems completely disinterested on how women may find offensive to be defined based on a bunch of sexist stereotypes or how offensive is to see our biology and our experiences be treated like a costume. Both groups ignore also how much their actions are setting the hard-earned women's rights back. In conclusion, by your post it seems you have more in common with "modern transgender people" than you think.

And yet you won't go to the men's bathrooms. Of course, you all could have lobby for third spaces ages ago. That is the obvious compromise that both the "old school transsexuals" and "the modern transgender people" has ruled out from the very beginning, and they both still treat it as a taboo. Apparently third spaces are othering and akin to racial segregation. Funny, though, how we women don't feel othered by not sharing the bathrooms with men, don't you think?

Edit: yeah, I guess I'm once again able to write a long post discussing this topic after a long, and very needed, "rest".

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Depends on the Republican. There are moderate ones out there, too. My main sticking point is the abortion issue, and while there are pro-choice Republicans, that's not their base. At this point I'm politically homeless. I'm still registered as a Democrat, but I don't feel like I can vote for them.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hey, welcome! It's good to have new people here, especially new trans posters. This sub is not very active, but many of us still lurk and occasionally contribute.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. I feel bad that the old-school or "classic" transsexuals have been caught up in the new culture war. It's not really about them and never was. I believe what society is reacting to now is the complete and total lack of moderation and boundaries and the TRA resistance to any form of compromise or moderation. The vast majority of gender critical women only peaked because of how extreme things have gotten, myself included.

Should those that don’t comply with bathroom bills or those that take illicit hormones and are caught be punished legally?

I'm not really as caught up on the bathroom issue as some GC women are. I'm extremely GNC and "passed" as a boy as a kid, so I've been in and out of the men's room my whole life. I often use the men's restroom just because it's less likely to draw attention. I'm 6'1" and dress in men's clothes, so I'm often mistaken for male at first glance.

I think that if people can pass, they should do what trans people have always done and use the restroom that makes the most sense for their appearance, or a gender-neutral third space if there is one. Ideally, I think there should be male, female, and gender-neutral bathrooms in all public spaces, so it would make the choice for trans people a lot easier. It would also help non-trans GNC people who may get looks or comments in the restroom designated for their biological sex.

As far as illicit hormones go, I don't think anyone should be penalized for taking them. People who are selling them illegally should be dealt with however that is usually handled, but anyone giving them to minors should have to face serious consequences. It's not okay to give street hormones to kids. I personally don't think it's okay to give any hormones to kids, but especially ones who are not under a doctor's supervision. At least those doctors, as immoral as I believe they are, do blood tests and keep an eye on the hormone levels of the kids in question.

Can GC and TS exist with compromises and will GC speak up if Republican men in power make it illegal to be trans and try and make the past a reality again?

I would love to be able to compromise, and I know there are transsexuals like Blaire White and Buck Angel and even Caitlyn Jenner who recognize the need for moderation and compromise. But they are drowned out by the powerful TRA organizations who scream constantly about how treating trans people differently in any arena is hatred, bigotry, and genocide.

I don't believe the Republican men in power will try to make being trans illegal. I think some of the more extreme Republicans may be trying to overcorrect because of how crazy things have gotten, but fundamentally, most moderates and conservatives take a "live and let live" perspective on the situation. A lot of hysteria is being whipped up by these organizations and they seem to have legitimately convinced a portion of the trans population that they are in real physical danger, which is incredibly sad and socially irresponsible from my perspective. No one, not the most conservative Republican or the most radical of radical feminists, wants to see trans people physically hurt or killed. The only people who want that are violent men, the gay bashers who have been going after GNC males since long before the trans movement started.

I am worried about the backlash that is sure to head the way of the moderate T people who never asked for any of this. I believe the LGB community is also going to experience backlash due to the forced teaming with the TRA brigade. But I don't know what the solution is. The Democrats are making this issue their hill to die on, which doesn't bode well for the future.

GC: Is sexual attraction only based on genitals, or is there more to sexual attraction (e.g. attraction to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", "masculinity", etc)? by Not_a_celebrity in GCdebatesQT

[–]DenEvans 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Useful site https://livecasinofinder.com/live-casino-software-providers/ with a detailed list of live casino software providers. Top casinos, useful recommendations, variety of games and much more

Is it really true that “no one's denying the reality of biological sex”? by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody is doing that except for all the people who are but they are hand waved away as untrue Scotsmen. Just like all the sexcrimes that never happen, and the changes to language we chestfeeder-uterushaver-bleeders made up don’t exist.

There was no honesty behind the tra argument “nobody is saying xyz!!!” It was born as a dismissive lie to make naysayers shut up and will die as one.

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

While there's a lot to be said in regards to trans criminals gender-typical behaviour, I find the conservative "look, trans shooter!" finger-pointing so laughably ironic, given just how much death and straight up terrorism their precious white male supremacism directly leads to, and given how much their no-questions-asked gun-worshipping keeps these things in the news.

As for my opinion, based on limited info and my experience with social trends in this area, she seemed to have been the standard-issue awkward (probably autistic) terminally-online artsy animal-idolising female millenial (mentally teen) with an interest in horror and morbidity, perhaps with a crushing-on-mass-murderers phase. I've pretty consistently seen those women directed into the trans pipeline. She would've been told that her fascination with male fictional/real life killers and her not wanting to be feminine was due to her being male herself, which is in line with trans people's very artificial obsessive ideas about the opposite sex. Since she was probably around male-dominated horror/gore websites or 4chan-like imageboards, she might've latched onto things like guns, atheism-as-an-identity and the "kids are annoying and need to die" mentality, and might've pushed it to prove to herself she belongs there. She sure as hell wouldn't latch onto the misogynistic abuse-and-rape-women aspect of these communities since that would hit a bit too close to home (err, I mean it would "gender invalidate her") and also target her female friends, so she'd need to compensate with something else.

I'm not sure if she got roped into some 4chan-level trans crowd or transmedicalists or whatever, or if she was just going off of the ever-present patriarchal toxicity all around us. Either way she probably felt this would be an ideal way to gender validate herself as a cool edgy loner boy, which is more attractive than crazy hysterical bitch or some other misogynistic slur. She must've liked the idea, based on previous trans shooters and general trans crime coverage, that the news would have to refer to her with male pronouns. Heck, the trans crowd is already gender-affirming themselves with her - "See! Female trans people are just as violent as men because they are real men!". I really don't think testosterone would make that much of an impact even if it was involved (I usually just see it more intensely fueling and encouraging the degree of a delusion, but not really changing anything in an of itself), but for both this and the Colorado shooter, as far as I know they weren't even on it, so it's kinda funny to see trans activists scramble to gender-validate their stage of transition by claiming this is just another example of extreme totally-cis-like male behaviour. Trans identified women have completely different motivations for imitating male toxicity than men, who never knew any better nor were policed or held to a higher standard. They are active imitators, as opposed to male shooters and male trans people snapping because that's what they are used to doing when they don't get their way. Trans identified women are not gonna go out and impulsively rape and murder (unless they're schizophrenic), they're gonna try to act out a fictional image of a "dude" that will maximise their validation points. They're like robots imitating humans in that way.

If the woman has male friends, she's going to engage in a lot of asskissing to gender-validate herself, but she'll also know to keep her head down so the guys wouldn't withdraw their approval. I doubt a woman like that would end up as a shooter. She's either going to know her place, or eventually her bros will turn on her for being female but in a way where she ultimately won't be able to "not like other girls"-herself out of it. And you can bet they won't have much patience for her "I'm a real boy"-pronouns if they're even slightly edgy. She'd either put up with being creeped on, or she'd be traumatised and run off. Either way, she's not going to shoot up a school, because women don't do that out of the blue. If she's going to shoot up a school, it's going to be fueled mainly by gender-affirmation, as opposed to just lashing out.

The shooter didn't seem to have male friends, but she probably spent lots of time in male-dominated spaces. Whether those had a trans community, I don't know. The more dysfunctional (talking 4chan levels) trans communities tend to be male dominated with the usual gamut of misogyny, racism and male narcissism, and with male-identified women who are there for validation points from roleplaying as edgy guys, ironically in a community where said edgy attitude is maintained by guys identifying as women. So, that dynamic is par for the course, but I feel the difference is that normally, women in non-trans communities will try really super hard to distance themselves from any "politics" for maximum approval from men, and will hyperfocus or derail to whatever "apolitical" interest removes the focus from them being women (with male friends, misogyny would be pretty much obligatory on top of that). She didn't seem to be trying that hard at transitioning, which could suggest a more passive attitude she'd have to take on in non-trans communities in order to not draw attention to herself, meaning she'd try to compensate with more violent attitudes.

The trans activist types will be a lot more into gender-validating themselves through general conceptual ideas on gender roles and/or brainsex, as opposed to ass-kissing specific irl guys in exchange for "one of the boys" points. It's more ideological in that way. They can also try to win points by emulating extreme misogyny if they latch onto brainsex (everpresent in any male community), but in this case it's more a performance to convince themselves personally of it, than the irl guys around them who are grading their performance. Basically they'll do it not out of fear that the guys will turn on them, but because they want to assure themselves that they're naturally just as misogynistic as the image of a guy they're imitating, despite what online naysayers claim. This is a very common sentiment in female trans spaces, so if the shooter was in trans spaces this might've inflated the (not that unusual for her demographic) fascination with school shooters and push to stand out by imitating them.

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Uhhh Republicans may not be putting people in literal death camps, but they're for sure extremely hostile to human rights and regressive to society as a whole.

GC: What is the sexual orientation of chasers/gynandromorphophiles? by cars in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I grew surrounded by amazing women that accepted me for who I am and mostly toxic men that scared me and gave me a lot of grief for even small things such as piercing my ears.

That's what gets me about men and boys. Female communities are accepting literally to the point of being self-destructive (i.e. liberal feminism) and STILL men rush to cover shitty men's asses even if said men ruin their lives. The levels of delusion are unbelievable.

But honestly, I've completely lost faith in the GC crowd as well. It's filled with conservative straight women complaining about femininity being overtaken by men and talking about "sacred femininity". GC had a chance to genuinely criticise gender, not just in trans people, but the way it negatively effects everyone, but it chose to hop in bed with conservatives clutching their pearls over people not fitting their proper gender roles.

I wish there was an actually feminist and actually gender critical community out there, but you just can't trust people to not end up licking patriarchal men's boots, so now we have a choice between liberals who are now actively trying to remove women's rights, and conservatives who have always been trying to remove women's rights.

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I find it interesting how little the TRA movement has been able to police the language. On Reddit, you will see people complaining about Audrey not being called Aiden or "he/him," but the mainstream media is either desperately trying to ignore pronouns altogether, using "they," or outright using "she" with no regard for her pronouns. If Hale thought becoming a school shooter would cause her to be seen as male, she would have been sorely disappointed in this outcome.

Evidence #43817 that no one actually believes this stuff.

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I won't comment much on the shooter's possible motivations because I don't like to speculate with so little information. I've seen people blaming exogenous hormones for the shooting, which is possible, although I'm not sure if it is confirmed that she was taking testosterone and, even if she was, there are many potential confounding factors (like whatever unresolved trauma or mental illness she may had, she possibly trying to prove how "manly" she was, TRA's violent rhetoric and irresponsible talks of genocide and suicide, and so on).

On one hand, I don't think you can rule out, without examining it first, the role that her chosen identity may have played. On the other hand, focusing too much on her identity is missing the forest for the trees.

I read Nashville was the 129th mass shooting in the US in 2023 (that is more mass shootings than days in the year so far...) and the 13th in a school setting. This a very American issue that don't happen anywhere else, not at this rate, anyway, pretty likely because there are too many guns in the US. It's quite easy buying and carrying firearms there, even assault riffles, that belong in the military. What for a civilian would need, for instance, an AR-15 living in a country that is not fighting a war in their own soil? Of course, the US is always at war with someone else, but that happens far, far away.

It's far too easy for wannabee shooters to have access to firearms, even ones designed to kill many people in a short time, yet there is little political will to restrict said access. Supposedly because of some sacrosanct right to bear arms, but more likely because regulations kill profits and the American gun lobby is quite powerful.

And for many Americans, guns seem to be answer to everything. I'm not longer shocked that, after a new mass shooting in the US, there are calls for bringing more guns so the "good guys" can fight off the "bad guys" and protect the innocents. But, for what I've hear over the years, apparently plenty of these gunmen, in their twisted logic, see themselves as the "good guys" fighting for a "just cause" and write a whole manifesto justifying their criminal acts. Not unlike American politicians of either party deciding to invade foreign countries or to make "regimen change" abroad pretending that is for a noble cause like "spreading democracy" or "human rights", all with the full approval of MSM; except that American war criminals are respected and never pay for their crimes. And American troops are honored for "serving their country"; even though that usually means ravaging the invaded countries so as to rich Americans can get richer.

Some may object that I'm linking mass shootings with militarism, but when so many Americans regard an AR-15 as a reasonable choice for self defense...

This is how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart

Varmints, soldiers and looming threats: See the ads used to sell the AR-15

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And with Agatha Christie's books they don't have the excuse that is for kids. Presumably, the adults who read them understand that social actitudes have changed.

It seems they want to "update" some Ursula K. Le Guin's children books, which I find completely absurd. Having read all the Earthsea's books and learning about her views, I cannot imagine her writing something questionable for children. And, indeed, the problematic parts are only seven instances of four words. So, what is the point?

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My assumption is that along with mental health issues, religion may have played a role for the shooter given that the school was Christian and religion can be at odds with those that are different.

True, although the shooter last attended that school when she was in the 4th grade. She would have been 9 years old, so it seems unlikely that she was aware of her own homosexuality at the time. Also doubtful homosexuality would ever have been addressed by the school, and certainly not transsexuality. Not even the most liberal schools in the country were talking to kids about transgender issues in 2004. But Hale was also high-functioning autistic, and it's possible that she did face ostracism or bullying for reasons not related to religion.

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Trans people are, incredibly, people, and thus capable of atrocity just like the rest of us.

Very true, but there remains the possibility that Hale may have committed this crime because TRAs have whipped vulnerable members of their own community into a frenzy over an imaginary "genocide." Take a mentally unstable person, convince her that Republicans are comparable to Nazis getting ready to throw trans people into death camps, and it would not be surprising that that person may strike back in vengeance.

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At this point, I'm numb to school shootings, but the ones where elementary schools are targeted are still rare enough to make a bigger impression. This is too unique for the media to ignore. A female shooter who was trans identified attacking a Christian school hits too many hot-button topics.

The shooter's motivation is still unknown, although the police chief did say "there is some theory to that" when asked if the shooting was related to how Audrey Hale identified. I suspect gender ideology was mentioned in her manifesto, although we won't know for sure until the manifesto is released. There's also speculation she targeted the school because she may have been the victim of sexual abuse there. There's no evidence she was abused, although there was an abuser affiliated with the church at the time she would have attended.

I find it interesting how little the TRA movement has been able to police the language. On Reddit, you will see people complaining about Audrey not being called Aiden or "he/him," but the mainstream media is either desperately trying to ignore pronouns altogether, using "they," or outright using "she" with no regard for her pronouns. If Hale thought becoming a school shooter would cause her to be seen as male, she would have been sorely disappointed in this outcome.

As usual, the right and the left are going to take what they want from this incident. From the left, we are still seeing a continuation of the same tone-deaf rhetoric that may have radicalized Hale and caused her to commit this crime. From the right, we are seeing that conservatives view this as a welcome distraction from the issue of guns.

Both: How do you feel about the Covenant School shooting? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]beris😎 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm certain the right wing media in the States will run with it until they've beaten the dead horse so thoroughly it's unrecognizable , all in an effort to once again point the finger at anything but guns. Otherwise, it's a non-issue. I don't care who is doing the mass shootings, I want them to stop. Trans people are, incredibly, people, and thus capable of atrocity just like the rest of us.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They're apparently now going through Agatha Christie books or something like that? Its all rather silly, we have so many books to choose from and its important to keep original language so people can see how things have changed, what has changed, etc. But also its just words!

Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hey, theory, still around? I didn't realize I never responded to your last few messages.

Both: What do you think about the NHS ending the gender-affirmation care model for youth in England? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How do you know that Kim repeatedly hits, yells at, punishes and shames Kai? Is there any evidence of this?

There is plenty of evidence for what happened to Kai. The child's own mother has admitted in multiple media interviews that she beat Kai for gender nonconformity as a toddler.

Kimberly turned to a DIY form of conversion therapy. She dressed Kai in camouflage and held her down to cut her blond hair into a flattop. Since most of the family’s seven children are boys—Kimberly has one adult daughter—there were no “girl toys” at home, but Kimberly asked the Christian daycare Kai attended to hide any baby dolls from her as well. When Kai turned her T-shirts into skirts or insisted she was a girl, Kimberly spanked her. When Kai asked for a Minnie Mouse birthday cake, Kimberly bought her one with Mickey.

“No matter how much punishment this kid got, you couldn’t beat it out of her,” Kimberly said. “You couldn’t pray it out, I couldn’t cast it out.”

https://splinternews.com/she-was-an-ultraconservative-texas-christian-then-kai-1793859323

"I remember thinking even before Kai was 3, this kid might be gay....& I thought that cannot happen...would not happen. We started praying fervently. Prayers turned into googling conversion therapy, and how can we implement these techniques at home to make Kai not be like this."

"Putting her in timeout for acting like a girl...for stealing girl toys. Spanking her...REALLY spanking her, every time she said mommy you know I'm a girl."

https://archive.is/zWlen

Not all parents of transitioned children are physically abusive. While horrible in other ways, I don't believe Jazz Jennings' parents ever beat their child. But it makes me absolutely sick to see people like the Shappleys fawned over in the media. What they did constitutes blatant child abuse.

To what extent does the activism of AGP transsexuals shape transsexual politics? by nausicaa in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wish you could have seen our old debate sub on Reddit. There were a lot of old-school transsexuals there. Sadly, Reddit doesn't want any discussion contrary to the party line taking place, so they banned our sub for alleged "hate." Even trans people themselves aren't respected if they have an opinion contrary to what TRAs have decided is the Word of God.

I don't usually like the cult comparison, but it's very "culty" for lack of a better word.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, Buck is female, as Buck is perfectly willing to admit.

Personally, my first instinct is to use the pronouns that make sense by looking at and hearing the person in question. To me, Buck passes as male. Jazz Jennings passes as female. Even though I know that their biological reality is the opposite, I would have to go against my perception to use their biological sex pronouns. Whereas someone like Eliot Page, for example, does not pass and there is just no way I could pretend she was either male or a sexless being.

GC: Are all trans people Trans Rights Activists? by QuietCheer in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, definitely not. There are even plenty of prominent trans people who are not TRAs. Blaire White, Buck Angel, Debbie Hayton, and others who are on TRA shit lists for not spouting the TRA party line. Even Caitlyn Jenner, the person who kicked off the trans boom in 2015, is vilified for not having TRA-approved opinions.

GC: What's a good age-appropriate way to explain to an 8 year old boy why it would be creepy, wrong, and disrespectful towards women for him to get earrings for Christmas like his sisters received, without making him feel like he's creepy and wrong himself? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wouldn't ever tell a boy that. Nothing wrong with a male person wearing earrings or other jewelry if he likes them.

QT: Do you regret any part of your medical transition? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing all that information. It's especially interesting to hear from an older transitioner. One of my main worries is that these procedures can lead to poor quality of life in later decades. Although it's my understanding that there is much less risk overall for MTF transsexuals vs. FTM ones.

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]worried19 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Still here. I just keep forgetting to check this site. I'm more active on Ovarit these days.

Should GC feminists stop associating with conservatives on topics in which they’re interests are aligned? by HeimdeklediROAR in GCdebatesQT

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So do you think it’s possible to work with conservative politicians in one area without increasing their overall electability?

In some places being pro choice, pro same-sex marriage, pro democracy could be a conservative position, conservative fully depends on what what kind of values they want want to conserve, it’s a relative word. I think supporting values you agree with tend to increase the overall electability of these values, and I care about the actual values, not the label. If the so called "good guys" have homophobic values I can't vote on it will hopefully motivate them to become less homophobic in the future.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pronouns are not based on biology.

You wouldn’t be here complaining about us basing pronouns on biology if we were not doing that.

Yet when people use "she" for me they are validating my identity.

So it validates your identity that we see you as being of the same sex as Buck Angel and Elliot Page? Why complain then?

Even if you don't believe in this language you can still return the same respect that Buck gives to you. I don't know if Buck can be considered GC but he holds GC beliefs.

If Buck is GC then Buck knows why we find it morally wrong to misgender men in masse with false gender identities just to make some man-identifying females feel better. Respect can’t be given on the expense of disrespecting others. Pronouns isn’t based on preferences for anyone so Buck is getting the same respect here as everyone else. And Buck is GC then Buck is not going to feel hurt by sex-based pronouns either as Buck would know it’s impersonal and that it says nothing about Buck’s gender feelings.

Buck is a man. He has a beard, deep voice and male levels of testosterone.

Women can have beards, deep voices and high levels of testosterone (especially if they are taking external testosterone).

Using preferred pronouns is absolutely a neutral and respectful act.

Had all non-transitioning males said they rather wanted to be called “zi” or always picked a different pronoun then females who want to be men, do you think they would have been called transphobic by transactivists? I think they would, which means trans activists are actually only for preferred pronouns for trans people but against the same freedom for non-trans people, which is worse than being against preferred pronouns for everyone.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Buck has never threatened any GC people, or feminists in general, or women in general.

And I give Buck the same respect as any other AFAB person, no more and no less.

Yet I see often in GC spaces Buck is often referred to as "she" when he stated his pronouns are he/him.

Pronouns aren't based on preferences for anyone, making an exception for Buck would be giving Buck preferential treatment.

What’s so hard about using his pronouns?

It's not hard to call AFAB people she.

Announcement: new mod by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]grassfed 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Np

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Couldn’t agree more

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Asking questions is always important, it always have been, more so when the powerful refuse to answer them.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Focusing so much on language is backwards, anyway. I mean, sure, language is important or I wouldn't have spent so much time talking about it here; however, language reflects social prejudices. Even if you baned all the offensive words, as long social values don't change, new ones will be coined. And, of course, not amount of language changes is going to modify physical reality, another reason why correctly sexing people is not the same than, for example, a racial slur.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Absolutely, it’s about feeling nice from virtue signalling online and from forced compliance, not actually doing anything for any sort of equality.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some of the changes are indeed for the worse and not only from a literary or historical point of view. I think it's "interesting" that among the changes, Matilda now reads Jane Austen and not Rudyard Kipling, I'm guessing because the latter is a British man writing about India, but the former fits better within the narrow range of things girls and women are allowed to like according to transactivists.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, but TRAs are perfectly fine being offensive when they want to. In fact, a good deal of their "inclusive language" is pretty dehumanizing toward women. Trans identified people just reserve the right not to be the object of offense.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don’t think critically, just make everything super nice and comfy, not hurting feelings is priority one. Emotional stunting makes it easy for everyone to focus on their identity politics and stop asking for community-based problem solving.

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think people with triggers/ extreme sensitivity need to be responsible for managing their triggers and leave shit alone. Ultimately doing things like this causes more harm than good imo, because the world is never going to be perfectly warm and fuzzy, so why are we bending over backwards to alter classic work so someone isn’t triggered by the word fat, as if that same someone won’t be called worse by people irl, or hear the same language elsewhere?

Like- just read Dr. Seuss. That’s is if you can handle the literal violence of the narrator rejecting Sam I Am and his green eggs and ham 🙄

All: on modernizing old books and sensitivity readers by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll start saying I've not read Dahl's books and I'm only familiar with the Matilda movie, which I liked, and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie, which was pretty weird and I disliked. However, even I can see how sensitivity readers had completely altered the books despite claims of trying to preserve the original essence.

I don't see the purpose of the changes, either. First, writers spent a good deal of time choosing every word; so, of course, any attempt to randomly change them is going to produce clunky results. Second, if you think the books are offensive, I really don't know why you are eager to read them, even if you're reading a tamer version. I think there is value in analyzing and discussing how a book covers controversial subjects (as long you don't start assuming that an author always supports everything that happens in their books or makes thing up, anyways), but this can only be done with the original. And when we're talking about old books, updating their language and ideas is, in my opinion, a form of historical revisionism, but whitewashing the past doesn't erase what happened. And, when you don't know history, it makes you prone to repeat past mistakes or unable to understand the present.

I'd say sensitivity readers should write their own stories instead, but I think it's clear why they don't: they really don't know how.

Kind off-topic for this sub, but this incident reminded me of the publication of Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince. In Latin America, the book title was translated not as Harry Potter y el príncipe mestizo, but as Harry Potter y el misterio del príncipe (Harry Potter and the Prince's Mystery) in case people got offended over the word mestizo even if it was the better translation choice. On the contrary, people were ofended because of the implication we would interpret it as a racist thing. And, besides the title, the books used the word mestizo, anyway, which made everything more ridiculous.

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll dm you! A bunch of folks here are technically on it though not active.

What happens when children get to pick their names and pronouns without restriction, deleted by mods by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

....yeah, the lack of people who understand limiting principles and their importance is... limitless.

GC: will 3D-printing erase men and women? by KimiORabu in GCdebatesQT

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, even if there was like perfect 3D printed females parts for males like me, we would still be male. I don’t think actual sex change will ever be possible, but even if it was we would still have the history of our lives before it that would be different than someone who was born that sex.

GC: will 3D-printing erase men and women? by KimiORabu in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. A robot is not going to magically print men a magic true and honest vagina. Neither would a magic wand, or sufficiently advanced surgery.

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well I have the same username! But yeah you kind of just need to get familiar with the users, it's not a huge user base so it's not too hard or anything like that. But yeah it does take some regular usage or you can just sort of ask a question and see who responds on that day

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Things def would’ve gotten heated over Hogwarts Legacy and all the Mermaids stuff!

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The discord is so confusing to me lol. I check it sometimes but idk where to jump in or who is who

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is a low key sister discord that is a little more active than this space if that helps.

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Say hi on the discord!

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Say hi in the discord sis!

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]Barbiebabe 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was talking to MossWolf about Hogwarts Legacy, and was thinking the old sub would've had a field day with the controversy going on.

I only check this place once every few months I think, and only out of curiosity.

Is this thing on? by loveSloaneDebate King in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Aw usage begets usage :( Is this more active on other reddit dupes?

How sure are you of your beliefs? by nausicaa in GCdebatesQT

[–]Philogynist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I believe that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition or perhaps a symptom of other mental health conditions. I think there needs to be different treatments/cures researched for gender dysphoria other than just transitioning.

I believe strongly in my perception because I'm a nerd in the life sciences who spends too much time reading articles on this type of shit and feel well-rounded in what we know and don't know about it - and boy we sure don't know a whole lot.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure not everyone is instantly identifiable as their sex but the way GB claims that because she thinks buck looks like a true and honest man we do and basically lie about it is total bullshit.

Should GC feminists stop associating with conservatives on topics in which they’re interests are aligned? by HeimdeklediROAR in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Literal word salad.

GC: What is the sexual orientation of chasers/gynandromorphophiles? by cars in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So I'm not familiar with GAMPs but based on what you're saying, I'm really not seeing the issue? Autogynephiles will get off to porn with sissies and male trans people. Just because they get off to the idea of themselves being women doesn't mean they can't project that onto other people. People with fetishes revolving around themselves being something or getting treated like something project onto porn and others all the time.

GC: What is the sexual orientation of chasers/gynandromorphophiles? by cars in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's a background idea here, that if it wasn't for the corruption of modern life, porn, the internet, decadence that men would be normal, straight conforming, good people. That they have been corrupted by culture.

This interpretation only works if you assume there was ever a time when men were normal, good people. This has never in history been the case. They have always abused women and peddled delusional ideas about them, both in day to day life, and to get their rocks off. Men have never had a sexuality that treated women as anything other than inferior sex objects. That they continue this corruption into modern life, spill it into porn and the internet, where it gets divorced from reality even more than your regular traditional misogynistic ideas, does not mean that the internet has twisted "normal" men. Like most things, the corruption was there all along, and the internet just intensified it and mutated it, though not at all beyond recognition. It's an extension of traditional male beliefs that never went anywhere and were never challenged. Most men never had an attraction to women as human beings. That's why, out of all sexualities, they're the worst at and least interested in satisfying their partners, and they're the only ones pushing for widespread supremacist, abusive systems aiming to control and subjugate their partners. So male "attraction" towards women remains in the realm of male supremacism, out-of-touch beauty standards (that actual women are seen to be only a vague approximation of) and delusional sexist ideas, and the fact that the internet morphs this into comically bizarre fetishes is the least surprising thing of them all.

Both: What do you think about the NHS ending the gender-affirmation care model for youth in England? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Remind me, was she the one who wrote about goblin bankers with big noses? Or slaves that like to be slaves?

I find it ironic that you're saying that while using the misogynistic manosphere meme "simp". Let me guess, you also happily use "bitch" as well?

I'm sure worshiping the ground a literal billionaire walks on is a truly feminist act.

As opposed to worshipping male billionaires who transition and now get treated as poor women who've been oppressed and traumatised by a lifetime misogyny, and also examples of female excellence and achievement?

Women being rich and using their influence to further women's rights is in no way contrary to feminism. Trying to get women to be happy with men's scraps because boo capitalism and "really it's all about class anyways" is a nice trick, but doesn't really work in radfem spaces.

Also, liberal and especially trans spaces are filled to the brim with misogyny. After all, statements about brainsex, or straight up gender stereotypes as well as denial of patriarchal influences are normal in these spaces, and frequently you'll have male MRAs or "egalitarians" get gender-validated because they rub their dicks to sissification anime porn.

Both: What do you think about the NHS ending the gender-affirmation care model for youth in England? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

most desist during puberty if they go through it naturally and aren’t affirmed.

I honestly wish there was a better way to make gender nonconformity feel normal than justifying it with "Yes, you're actually the opposite sex and we gotta get you medication and amputations asap for your disease of having a 100% normal and healthy body", or telling the kid that they should just do whatever they want, completely ignoring the patriarchal pressures molding and pressuring them in the process. GC should put more effort into discussing what healthy, widespread and normalised gender nonconformity would look like, instead of treating it as something only gay people would want to engage in.

It sucks that gender nonconformity isn't the norm, and waving off those feelings of alienation and hurt caused by the toxic gender roles as just a part of growing up, or, even worse, something to grow out of once you start presenting "normally", isn't really an adequate alternative.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would not be ok with someone saying I'm not a woman not because I would get a mental breakdown over someone acknowledging something that I'm desperately lying to myself about, but for the same reason I would not be okay with being called a sparrow, or someone calling my dog a helicopter, or claiming we live on Mars. Because this is false, and there is objective, conclusive evidence that proves it is false.

Additionally, there is an additional problem when falsehoods are pedaled for the sake of a damaging agenda. So, for example, if someone insisted that COVID is fake, or that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, this goes beyond just a mistake, or a silly misunderstanding, and is falsehood motivated by ideology. In the same way, a person calling me some measure of not-a-woman because I don't match their misogynistic ideas about women isn't just saying something that isn't in line with reality, they are also directly expressing their toxic ideology by doing that, an ideology that is rooted in the idea that a woman is a fetish, or an ideal in men's heads, or someone who plays with dolls etc.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's like when white supremacists, religious nuts and misogynists say that we should "respect their beliefs". People should not respect beliefs rooted in supremacist ideas that are damaging to humanity.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When you have people talking about how we all evolved to recognise men and women and how everyone can tell, then the fact that plenty of people can't tell goes contrary to that (though I will say, a trans activist who is obliged to pretend like anyone is whatever they say they are is not the best metric of a person's ability to acknowledge reality).

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's easy to say that after the fact. Among people there is quite a variety in voice, appearance, movements, demeanor etc. Insisting that you can always tell with 100% certainty is delusional and I don't believe it for a second

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The fact that superficial perception can be tricked does not change the reality of human biology. People think spiders are insects, but that doesn't make it so. People have mistaken me for a man, that does not make me male. It's honestly astonishing how many trans activists need to have it explained to them that holding patently false beliefs does not make them valid just because you believe in them.

I will also say, I have continuously been able to tell who's male or female in online trans spaces solely by their very typical gendered socialisation. That perfectly demonstrates why gender validation is so problematic and even straight up dangerous. Saying someone is male or female based not in whether they are male or female but solely based on hearsay or superficial appearances ignores the actually real gendered socialisation that we are all raised with, whether we acknowledge it or not.

GC: What is so hard about using people's preferred pronouns? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pronouns are not based on biology.

Either pronouns are based in biology (which they are), or they're based in misogynistic stereotypes that a woman is someone with a pink brain, someone who enjoys misogynistic oppression, someone who likes to wear "women's" clothes etc. etc. The alternative to pronouns rooted in biology is pronouns rooted in defining men and women according to utter misogyny, and that's why radical feminists have an issue with them and don't want to use them.

Also, pronouns have always been based in biology. Trans people themselves are extremely vocal about how oppressive this societal norm is. So claiming that actually, everyone already uses pronouns based in genderfeels and trans people have nothing to complain about feels like intentionally playing dumb, since that is one of the biggest points of contention and confusion between trans activists and the majority of people.

when people use "she" for me they are validating my identity. Why is different about trans people?

People do not use "she" to validate your identity. They use "she" because it is an objective fact that you are an adult human female. Feelings, politeness, niceness, wishful thinking, your zodiac sign etc. have nothing to do with it. If I call you a vertebrate, or a mammal, I am saying that because that's what the reality is, rather than because that's what you want to hear.

If we're talking politeness, trans activists could start by not lying about and supporting the oppression that women endure as a result of their sex, and by not erasing, downplaying and twisting the language needed for feminist discourse because it hurts their feelings.

Buck is a man. He has a beard, deep voice and male levels of testosterone.

That's not what being male is. There are plenty of non-trans women who have deep voices, facial hair and abnormal testosterone levels. There are also plenty of non-trans men with no facial hair, high voices and significantly lower testosterone levels. Science has long since accounted for this. These are not people of the opposite sex, or third sex or whatever, they're either just a natural variance of male or female biology, or they have a disorder of sexual development. If anyone with male testosterone levels was automatically male, it wouldn't be possible to define a disorder where a male has male hormone levels, or any disorder defined by the sexual biological function malfunctioning. That's why no-one would bat an eye at a boy claiming he needs to see the doctor because his period didn't come in, regardless of whether that boy identified as a girl, a menstruator or a dragon.

Buck's body is a woman's body, morphed through years of maintaining an artificial hormonal imbalance (which has also lead to debilitating health issues). This is completely different from a male body that is male because it's MALE. This is a masculinised female body, not a male body, just as a castrated male with an inverted penis has nothing to do with an actual female. It is simply not scientifically possible to change one's sex in any way. The only thing you can do is artificially induce a hormonal disorder.

Even if you don't believe in this language you can still return the same respect that Buck gives to you.

Acknowledging reality is not something you do out of "niceness" or "respect". I will not pretend the Earth is only a few thousand years old just to be respectful to Creationists, nor do I expect anyone to acknowledge the actual age of the Earth solely out of politeness and to not get me offended, but rather because this is an objective, measurable fact.

GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom? by GenderbenderShe/her/hers in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is proven from numerous studies that women are more supportive of trans rights than men.

Sure? This is perfectly expected given our society's neglect and hostility towards women's rights, women's socialisation that forces them to prioritise everyone but themselves, as well as women's general resistence to supremacist ideals and men's sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies that they're rewarded for. People behave in accordance with their upbringing. That's the whole point. Your average woman is supportive anyone and their dog's rights abover her own, and will prioritise men's erections and narcissism because that's how she's been brought up, and because society will punish her heavily if she doesn't keep her head down. Your average dude is against trans people because he doesn't want "trannies" to ruin his perfect patriarchal utopia where anyone who isn't a manly man knows their place. Or he supports trans people because that's the latest porn category he's been jerking off to lately. Same goes for male feminism. It exists only insofar as it allows men to jerk off to it.

By your own logic, you're being gender essentialist by using statistics to claim that women support the trans ideology more than men, since any acknowledgement of these things is "generalising" and "pushing sex stereotypes".

Trans men are men. While I hate the phrase "boys will be boys" because it is almost always used to excuse bad behavior, if I were to use that phrase, trans boys would be included under "boys" unless I specified "cis boys."

Riiiight. Women who identify as non-women just so happen to act in accordance with female socialisation because they're uh...women who are actually men with female brains and female gender identities?

Should GC feminists stop associating with conservatives on topics in which they’re interests are aligned? by HeimdeklediROAR in GCdebatesQT

[–]HeimdeklediROAR[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those aren’t the sort of systems I’m talking about. It’s more like people having subjective associations with things due to instincts and socialization and using artificial labels to categorize things in a personal way while not assuming that others share the same definitions as you.

QT: Would you accept a ban on all cosmetic genital surgeries for minors if it were the only way to stop the thousands of these procedures performed daily on nonconsenting newborn boys? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What does circumcision have to do with gender critical or gender theorists?

Are you comparing circumcision to a doctor performing aesthetic “corrections” on babies with disorders of sexual development?

GC: What's a good age-appropriate way to explain to an 8 year old boy why it would be creepy, wrong, and disrespectful towards women for him to get earrings for Christmas like his sisters received, without making him feel like he's creepy and wrong himself? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, gender critical feminism is absolutely not against gender nonconforming boys and men. Gender nonconformity is natural, normal, human experience.

Assigning a sex to items like earrings or hammers or colours is nonsensical. It can’t be described to you in a sensible way. There’s no sense or logic behind it, just sex stereotypes all the way down.

A man who wears a dress is doing nothing to women, we don’t care at all. There’s nothing about it that says anything other than this man wears his clothes. When a man puts on the dress and declares he is a woman because he is doing something his culture has associated as “woman’s thing” he is defining women as anyone who participates in his warped idea of what womanhood is.

There is no offence or disgust when a man simply does his thing. Nobody here is bothered if a dude enjoys crochet or frocks.

GC: What's a good age-appropriate way to explain to an 8 year old boy why it would be creepy, wrong, and disrespectful towards women for him to get earrings for Christmas like his sisters received, without making him feel like he's creepy and wrong himself? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]citydweller1[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you think that random screenshots from people who may or may not have gender critical views is really the best way to understand what gender criticism actually is?

Certainly not. I wouldn't want to suggest that opposition to male GNC expression is an element of mainstream gender critical feminist thinking, that'd simply be untrue. On the other hand, I figured if anyone knew how opposition to male GNC expression could fit in a feminist framework rather than as an iteration of misogynistic stereotypes etc... then there's a good chance it'd be someone in this crowd.

GC: What's a good age-appropriate way to explain to an 8 year old boy why it would be creepy, wrong, and disrespectful towards women for him to get earrings for Christmas like his sisters received, without making him feel like he's creepy and wrong himself? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you think that random screenshots from people who may or may not have gender critical views is really the best way to understand what gender criticism actually is?

A man who wears a dress is fine. A man who wears a dress and claims that doing so is womanhood is extremely sexist. I’d be doing a disservice if I treated people like Alok Venon or J Yaniv as authorities on gender identity, and I feel you are doing a disservice by ignoring gender critical content for anecdotes from people who might just be being a bully.

GC: What's a good age-appropriate way to explain to an 8 year old boy why it would be creepy, wrong, and disrespectful towards women for him to get earrings for Christmas like his sisters received, without making him feel like he's creepy and wrong himself? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]citydweller1[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Usually when I see GC content randomly floating on social media, instead of looking for it in real literature and on debate platforms like this, it's people criticizing and mocking gender nonconforming males under the assumption that their appearance implies they are trans.

view more: next ›