All: Is autogynephilia normal in natal women?

submitted by CRTmonitor from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How can you believe in Blanchard's typology and be social constructionist?

Where is the contradiction?

You think it is false consciousness?

Anyone who likes femininity was conditioned to like it. To believe otherwise would be to deny the existence of culture & the effects of socialisation.

You think masculine is the natural order of all people?

Wtf? Yes, cultural norms are exacted by Mother Nature.

You should probably start being a little more forthcoming in your replies.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

Where is the contradiction?

The Blanchard model is essentialist and social constructionism isn't. It's that stark.

Anyone who likes femininity was conditioned to like it. To believe otherwise would be to deny the existence of culture & the effects of socialisation.

Do you also think anyone who likes masculinity was conditioned to like it?

Or is it immune for reasons?

Wtf? Yes, cultural norms are exacted by Mother Nature.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

You should probably start being a little more forthcoming in your replies.

Or this.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The Blanchard model is essentialist and social constructionism isn't. It's that stark.

When are you finally going to actually expound??? I still have no idea what you're on about. You've got to commit more than a single sentence to whatever you're trying to articulate.

Do you also think anyone who likes masculinity was conditioned to like it?

No, you see whenever the majority likes something it's just a coincidence that all their unique tastes just so happen to align with the status quo. Sarcasm aside, masculinity is not equivalent to femininity. "Masculinity" is broad & includes everything, except femininity, just like any norm vs other. I already told you masculinity encompasses everything that our culture regards as positive, as well as everything it regards as neutral, as well as the polar opposite of femininity. While femininity is just 5 things, masculinity is everything else, like day vs. night.

Socially constructed binaries aren't true binaries, since they are never 50/50, they are more like 99/1, that's why they always seem hierarchical. They are neither binaries nor hierarchical. Every "binary" is just a synonym for normal vs. abnormal. Like normal, "masculinity" is just a placeholder, a retronym, the default. It has no real definition. The word femininity exists to distinguish itself from the norm, the reason the word masculinity exists is to refer to that which never needs to be referred to except to distinguish femininity from the norm, but from another angle. Treating masculinity as of it's the same as femininity would be upholding the pretence that a binary exists. It doesn't. We just like to pretend that it does.

Some concepts don't have words to describe them, which subsequently makes it difficult for us to understand those concepts, likewise sometimes we invent words for concepts that don't exist. It's like how we like to believe in binary opposites, that there are two things that are opposites of one another & that's the end of it. But take the number 1, for instance. What's the opposite of 1? It could be argued that -1, 0 & 2 are all the opposites of one. So binary opposites don't truly exist, we just like to believe that they do.

Anyway, I'm notoriously bad at explaining norm vs. other, but suffice it to say masculinity & femininity are not equivalent. Just because something is true of one, doesn't make it true of the other. In reality there is just femininity. Masculinity is just a word so that we have a convenient way of saying "not femininity". It'd be like coming up with a collective word for all the colours, except the colour blue, in order to further other the colour blue. Blue vs. 'all-the-colours-except-blue', are not a binary & so oughtn't be treated as one.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

No, you see whenever the majority likes something it's just a coincidence that all their unique tastes just so happen to align with the status quo. Sarcasm aside, masculinity is not equivalent to femininity. "Masculinity" is broad & includes everything, except femininity, just like any norm vs other.

You understand this is an unusual and uncommon view.

You seriously can't think of any good things associated with femininity?

I already told you masculinity encompasses everything that our culture regards as positive, as well as everything it regards as neutral, as well as the polar opposite of femininity. While femininity is just 5 things, masculinity is everything else, like day vs. night.

I mean I'd say I now understand where you are coming from now.

Socially constructed binaries aren't true binaries, since they are never 50/50, they are more like 99/1, that's why they always seem hierarchical. They are neither binaries nor hierarchical. Every "binary" is just a synonym for normal vs. abnormal. Like normal, "masculinity" is just a placeholder, a retronym, the default. It has no real definition. The word femininity exists to distinguish itself from the norm, the reason the word masculinity exists is to refer to that which never needs to be referred to except to distinguish femininity from the norm, but from another angle. Treating masculinity as of it's the same as femininity would be upholding the pretence that a binary exists. It doesn't. We just like to pretend that it does.

I understand this idea. I just don't think the majority of people agree with it. They value femininity in the world rather than something that can be abolished. They don't see masculinity as the everything.

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In order for anything I said to be true the majority would have to disagree. In order for me to say that our cultures believes in binary opposites, most people would have to believe in binary opposites. I think it was Saussure who figured out that binaries refer to absence vs. presence. It was Derrida who figured out that all these binaries are hierarchical. After that follow the norm vs other conception that Simone de Beauvoir appears to subscribe to. So even though it may not be a concept that is understood by the mainstream it has been present within feminism for a long time now.

We are all conditioned the same. We are all conditioned to have a positive view of masculinity & femininity. If you try to look up mainstream lists of feminine traits, there will be no mention of sexual objectification, despite sexual objectification playing such a huge part in our culture's view of women. These definitions are dishonest, propaganda. Practically every well-known feminist text is a critique on femininity. Femininity is conformity to patriarchal norms. It's the antithesis of feminism. So my negative view of it is hardly controversial within feminist circles.

Women might end up being more polite, more sociable & less aggressive than men as a result of their socialisation, but is that valuable when you know the origin, when you know the cost?

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

You can break everything into binaries and hierarchies but they can be contingent.

It isn't a fact that masculinity is the best that is a subjective judgement.

People can sexually objectify masculinity. Is that a reason to abolish it?

I think attraction to masculinity or femininity is a perfectly natural part of human behaviour. Cultures without gender wouldn't be natural.

All attempts to make cultures without gender fail.

It's true radical feminism often is opposed to femininity as a concept. But the idea never becomes the mainstream idea within feminism because of rejection by women. This carries on not happening. When it carries on not happening you have admit that there might be an error in the theory saying it ought to happen.

Are you admitting there is value in not being so aggressive as the masculine trait often represents? That there is value in agreeableness.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can break everything into binaries and hierarchies but they can be contingent.

My point is that they are nether binaries nor hierarchical.

It isn't a fact that masculinity is the best that is a subjective judgement.

When did I say masculinity is objectively the best?

People can sexually objectify masculinity. Is that a reason to abolish it?

That's hypothetical. I've never seen any instance of sexual objectification of masculinity. If someone sexually objectified masculinity once, twice, even thrice, that's not on par with femininity being defined by it.

I think attraction to masculinity or femininity is a perfectly natural part of human behaviour. Cultures without gender wouldn't be natural.

So why aren't children attractive then?

All attempts to make cultures without gender fail.

Everything fails.

Are you admitting there is value in not being so aggressive as the masculine trait often represents? That there is value in agreeableness.

There is value in being working-class & women are the working-class within the nuclear family structure. If you're poor, uneducated & an extravert you probably laugh more often, have a lot more friends & are less neurotic than your middle-class counterparts. There is value in it, not by design, but our culture doesn't value it.

There are ways of getting men to be less aggressive without making them into an easily exploitable doormat like the feminine standard would have them become if they were to ever adopt it fully.