QT: Even by your own beliefs, sexuality can't be based on "gender identity"

submitted by BiologyIsReal from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

No. They acknowledged that men still hold onto misogyny and masculinity even when they claim they're women.

Well I was asking what they meant.

This is a tired debate that GC has had countless times already: we acknowledge masculinity and femininity as social factors that the sexes are inevitably saddled with as a result of their upbringing.

GC often isn't a single stable position.

There are different beliefs.

A person who truly felt alienated by gender norms wouldn't go out of their way to follow them.

Where does truly felt alienation from gender norms come from? Is it "natural" ?

Society does begrudgingly allow a degree of flexibility in regards to gendered presentation, but male trans people usually don't make use of that at all, because it's not about freeing yourself from gender norms, it's about imitating a caricature of inferior womanhood.

I'm still never clear what you're idea of "good male trans people" are.

It comes back to this issue of femininity being bad for everyone and masculine being seen as the "true natural norm."

It seems to amount to "Gender will be abolished when everyone is masculine." Seems the implied message.

What is wrong with this understanding?

[–]adungitit 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

GC often isn't a single stable position. There are different beliefs.

These things have been stated over and over again, they're literally basic GC tenants you can see from the most cursory overview of their sub. The fact that you can constantly act stupid and amnesia-ridden and demand the same GC 101 explanations over and over again won't change reality to match your bullshitting.

Where does truly felt alienation from gender norms come from? Is it "natural" ?

You are trying to derail again. The point was that a person claiming to be alienated and tortured by gender norms didn't do jack to actually budge said gender norms and in fact worked hard to live up to said gender norms, making their claims highly unconvincing. Whether their gendersoul was compelling them to act in paradoxical ways in irrelevant.

I'm still never clear what you're idea of "good male trans people" are.

Not believing in male supremacist ideology and objectifying women would be a good start (which goes for all men). But let me guess, poor men's dicks didn't evolve for that :,(

It comes back to this issue of femininity being bad for everyone and masculine being seen as the "true natural norm."

Because femininity exists in the first place in order to be oppressive. Masculinity exists in order to maximise privileges and entitlement for men. Hence why femininity results in demonstrable widespread damage to women, and masculinity results in huge privileges for men. Because the system has caused and continues to cause immeasurable suffering for women at the hands of men, it needs to be abolished. But let me guess, "Poor men's dicks didn't evolve for that :,("

It seems to amount to "Gender will be abolished when everyone is masculine."

Right, you're still sticking to that "only masculinity and femininity exist" horseshit. Tell me again, which is feminine and which is masculine: Pepsi or Cola? Oh, you're gonna disappear again? Bye!

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

These things have been stated over and over again, they're literally basic GC tenants you can see from the most cursory overview of their sub. The fact that you can constantly act stupid and amnesia-ridden and demand the same GC 101 explanations over and over again won't change reality to match your bullshitting.

I'm asking because some gc side people jump between the positions. To me this is a common pattern.

If some gc person says "well I don't agree with all of gc or gender abolition or the complete constructionist model" then fair enough but it's part of the debate.

It's fine not to agree with one side orthodoxy, it's part of the debate.

You are trying to derail again.

It is not derailing.

The point was that a person claiming to be alienated and tortured by gender norms didn't do jack to actually budge said gender norms and in fact worked hard to live up to said gender norms, making their claims highly unconvincing.

Are we talking about a man or woman here?

Not believing in male supremacist ideology and objectifying women would be a good start (which goes for all men). But let me guess, poor men's dicks didn't evolve for that :,(

I think this is evasive. Making male non conformity entirely about rejection an extreme male chauvinism. I don't recognise that at a reasonable position.

Because femininity exists in the first place in order to be oppressive.

The logic of this is everyone should be masculine.

You do see that?

Masculinity exists in order to maximise privileges and entitlement for men. Hence why femininity results in demonstrable widespread damage to women, and masculinity results in huge privileges for men. Because the system has caused and continues to cause immeasurable suffering for women at the hands of men, it needs to be abolished. But let me guess, "Poor men's dicks didn't evolve for that :,("

Actually I think women generally want masculine men for sexual reasons. Their sexual desire is not an invalid reason.

Right, you're still sticking to that "only masculinity and femininity exist" horseshit. Tell me again, which is feminine and which is masculine: Pepsi or Cola? Oh, you're gonna disappear again? Bye!

Pepsi or Cola aren't gendered. They could be. But they aren't.

That something isn't gendered does not mean gender isn't natural.

Just as a language might not have a name for something does not mean language isn't naturally emergent.

[–]adungitit 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

If some gc person says "well I don't agree with all of gc or gender abolition or the complete constructionist model" then fair enough but it's part of the debate.

Because that person is disagreeing with what GC is (a position that is known through basic familiarity with the movement), not because any bullshit you can think of passes for whatever you want.

If you cannot recognise basic tenants of a certain position that are spelled out to you on the sub's front page, then you have nothing to argue over. You are acting stupid and should not be allowed to debate.

It is not derailing.

And if you just say you're not, that magically makes it so!

The point was that a person claiming to be alienated and tortured by gender norms didn't do jack to actually budge said gender norms and in fact worked hard to live up to said gender norms, making their claims highly unconvincing. Whether their gendersoul was compelling them to act in paradoxical ways in irrelevant.

Are we talking about a man or woman here?

You are derailing again. The point was that a person claiming to be alienated and tortured by gender norms didn't do jack to actually budge said gender norms and in fact worked hard to live up to said gender norms, making their claims highly unconvincing.

Making male non conformity entirely about rejection an extreme male chauvinism. I don't recognise that at a reasonable position.

Just wanking out a "I disagree" is as worthwhile as wanking out that the moon is made of cheese.

The logic of this is everyone should be masculine.

The logic is that both femininity and masculinity are oppressive constructs. Masculinity facilitates abuse, femininity facilitates objectification of women and taking abuse.

Actually I think women generally want masculine men for sexual reasons

Riiight. And all the abuse, trauma and anxieties resulting from that just happen because "it's what women want". And the fact that men never gave a fuck about women's pleasure is also just because women have been secretly mind-controlling them, right? As are the orgasm gap, the dehumanisation, objectification, harassment, double standards, domestic expectations etc. After all, women were owned by men because they wanted it, right?

Their sexual desire is not an invalid reason.

It just so happens to, through pure coincidence, coincide with what men want and have been pushing onto them for centuries, and also result in high rates of dissatisfaction, anxiety and trauma. But let me guess, none of that matters because you can wank out that you "don't think so".

Pepsi or Cola aren't gendered. They could be. But they aren't.

It was you who made the claim that the patriarchy and its gender norms cannot cease to exist because everything has to be either masculine of feminine. Which one is Pepsi, and which is Cola? Feel free to reconsider your opinion if you can't answer this.

That something isn't gendered does not mean gender isn't natural.

Appealing to nature and justifying male supremacy as innate has been used by men to oppress women for as long as the patriarchy has existed. Turns out women can vote and have careers, though. So I'm afraid I don't care much for your male supremacist wanking. That's worked out marvellously for men, and has done nothing but screw women over.