QT, if gender is innate to identity

submitted by HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 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 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (17 children)

Oh! After all these years I think I get what you're saying. You think that masculinity and femininity are exhibitionism.

I do think sexual display are strong parts of masculinity and femininity.

It appears all societies link masculinity and femininity

Why wouldn't humans have sexual display? Humans especially of all animals would have a sexuality deeply meshed with culture which is seemingly a major human feature.

And you think that all humans are exhibitionists.

Sexual exhibitionism seems like a description of an excessive form.

But certainly human sexuality does work without sexual display. It's part of courtship.

In humans men and women both perform sexual selection. So it would be natural for them to perform sexual display. A super common thing in the animal world.

You think that practically all things that humans do, all the time, we do for sexual reasons.

Nope not at all. I do think we are natural animals and cannot escape natural desires.

We are not completely conscious of our desires. Even if we can learn them or consciously manage them we cannot choose our desires.

A sexual display is not always a conscious display.

And not even in a way that I would sort of recognize, like "I do this to attract a partner so I can have sex," but more like, "showing myself to people in this outfit is sex." I knew you were preoccupied with your particular kink, but it just clicked for me that you think everyone is, all the time. How Freudian! I think it must be kind of exhausting to live that way.

I'm not a Freudian, I don't think it's good science. Even if some ideas progressed into good ideas.

I don't think "everyone is like me" but I don't think I'm absolutely different from all other humans.

Do you recognize the existence of non-sexual drives?

Of course.

Do we do anything, want anything, enjoy anything, that doesn't have a sexual thrill at the bottom of it?

Of course.

A drive to learn new things, to accomplish something difficult? Non-sexual relationships with family members and friends? A desire to be in nature, to commune with something larger than the self?

Why are you thinking I think everything is about sex?

I do think humans are natural animals driven by unconscious uncontrollable desires.

Free will acts on those desires.

Are all displays sexual, in your eyes?

No but that depends on where in the chain you are stopping.

A display of loyalty can be natural but not strictly sexual.

In the context where I live it's very politically divided, and the culture wars are kind of everything. I'd say people are more interested in displays of tribalism than gender. If you only go by someone's clothes, cars with bumper stickers, wander through the house and see what they show on the walls and bookshelves, everything but the physical body in other words, you might have an easier time knowing whether they were "blue team" or "red team" so to speak than which sex they were. It could be different where you are, but your theory is no good if it has to pretend that your little corner of the world represents the whole of human nature.

I would think "tribalism" is another natural behaviour humans are prone to.

[–]BiologyIsReal 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Why wouldn't humans have sexual display?

You're missing the point again. She is not saying that humans don't have sexual display, but that humans are driven for other things besides sex. You were the one who claimed that feminity and masculinity were sexuality, so why are you surprised that others think you view everything through sexual lens? And I think Juniperious is right: you seem to be extrapolating your own particular experiences to everyone else. You may not claim to be a woman, but you surely like to act as if you were an expert on women and you try to shield your views under the excuse of "evolution".

And before you ask, no, I don't believe in the blank slate theory. I think differences between women and men are due to both nature and nurture.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (12 children)

You're missing the point again. She is not saying that humans don't have sexual display, but that humans are driven for other things besides sex.

Of course.

You were the one who claimed that feminity and masculinity were sexuality,

I meant to write "Masculinity and femininity are deeply naturally connected to sexuality."

It is not all of it but they are connected.

so why are you surprised that others think you view everything through sexual lens? And I think Juniperious is right: you seem to be extrapolating your own particular experiences to everyone else. You may not claim to be a woman, but you surely like to act as if you were an expert on women and you try to shield your views under the excuse of "evolution".

I don't think it is my experience alone that see masculinity and femininity as being deeply connected to the sex lives of humans.

That does not mean all of it is sexual.

And before you ask, no, I don't believe in the blank slate theory. I think differences between women and men are due to both nature and nurture.

Well I agree then. That would be my starting point and those differences are often connected to sexual behaviour.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

No, I don't think we agree at all. You strongly lean on atributing (nearly) all sex differences to nature and assigning a sexual motive to (almost) everything. You often miss what we told you here because you refuse to analyse the power dynamics present in what society expect from each sex unless you're getting off of it, that is. Sex roles and stereotypes vary through time and culture, but always men are at the top of the hierarchy. Men who are perceived as not "manly" enough for whatever reason are looked down by other men, but women lose not matter wheter they conform to social norms or not. But you refuse to recognise this because you get off on viewing yourself as a sumissive woman and women being naturally sumissive. And when you're challenged here for your sexist views, you twist what we say to suit your own ideas of women and men.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (10 children)

But I don't enjoy submissive women. Why would I want that all to be true? And I don't ID as a woman.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You call yourself a straight cross-dresser, so even if you don't ID as a woman, you still get sexually aroused by the idea of being a woman, don't you? You also has described yourself as sumissive in the bedroom and you link sumission with women (i.e. yu think we are naturally sumissive and naturally attracted to dominant men). That is what I meant.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (8 children)

Do I get the politically problematic connection of that? Of course. It is very much in my mind.

But my desires came before my understanding. Right? You don't think I actively chose to be a crossdresser with a love of dominant women?

I can think well this is just me. Nothing to do with the rest of society or people. But I have to reason out what I see in the rest of the world.

A problem is the straight erotic world is overwhelmed with those gender norms.

Straight women do have a preference for dominant masculine men. The pattern is so strong I assume there is some natural pattern to that.

It's absolutely not in my interest to believe that. I can think of plenty of alternative models that would be.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don't know how you developed this paraphilia, but I think the how is irrelevant. It matters more that you still choose to endulge it despite that you supposedly understand why it's problematic. I think that claiming you were born this way it's a conforting lie that you tell yourself. This way you cannot be held risponsible for your sexual desires and be asked to do something about it. Telling yourself that women are naturally sumissive and naturally attracted to dominant men is also self-serving because it affirms your ideas about men and women. It allows you to see yourself as a victim: if only women were interested in men like you, your sexual life surely would be more satisfactory. It also allows you that avoid thinking in the uncomfortable possibility that many women may not be attracted to you not because you're sumissive, but because they may be put off about you getting off of a woman's caricature and/or about the idea of BDSM in general.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

I don't know how you developed this paraphilia, but I think the how is irrelevant.

The hows and whys of sex, gender and "deviancy" are intellectually fascinating on their own.

The reasons are also important if you explicitly want to suppress some.

If enjoying bad internet porn was a thing that made crossdressers then suppressing then it would create less crossdressers. But for me personally that was not the case. I don't see it being true in a wider sense either.

If it was something I was doing in my life I'd stop it because I wouldn't chose this identity. But I have to get on with life.

It matters more that you still choose to endulge it despite that you supposedly understand why it's problematic.

What is the problem to wider society exactly?

You think people are wandering around an alternative bar thinking "Well I was all for gender equality until saw a man in a dress with a woman that looks sexually dominant."

If there is a wider trigger in society it is not from crossdressers who are not significant figures in popular culture.

Regarding the sexualization of power. I think it's something society needs to reconcile itself with because it's so prevalent and common. It's taken for granted and we'd be better off recognising it and coping with it. That does not mean accepting every form of it.

I think that claiming you were born this way it's a conforting lie that you tell yourself.

Comforting? Comforting that I can't do anything about something I'd prefer not to be? More like accepting reality. Not being delusional.

This way you cannot be held risponsible for your sexual desires and be asked to do something about it.

What does being held responsible for liking crossdressing and enjoying sexually passionate aggressive women mean?

What does doing something about it mean? Corrective therapy to "man up" ?

Promotion of masculinity? Suppression of ideas of dominant women? Support for sexual gender norms?

Telling yourself that women are naturally sumissive and naturally attracted to dominant men is also self-serving because it affirms your ideas about men and women.

How on Earth does that make sense? Why would I be pleased that straight women are more likely to be attracted masculine dominant men?

It allows you to see yourself as a victim: if only women were interested in men like you, your sexual life surely would be more satisfactory.

There are women that find it attractive, erotic and pleasing. They are just naturally rarer. They like to express their sexual desire in a very aggressive manner. It's not abuse it's erotic play.

The last thing the women who find crossdressers attractive are concerned about is it's putting a crossdresser in the mood.

It also allows you that avoid thinking in the uncomfortable possibility that many women may not be attracted to you not because you're sumissive, but because they may be put off about you getting off of a woman's caricature and/or about the idea of BDSM in general.

BDSM? Have you checked what erotic lit straight women enjoy? They love that fantasy world. Have you checked the social science reports on sexual fantasy and bedroom activities and porn use? I know gc will say they are being forced to enjoy it by the system but I see it as so common I can't deny their agency. This does not mean I think those fanatsies should rule their lives.

So the erotica consumed, the science reports and my personal experience to me all point to straight women enjoying that kind of thing. Don't shoot the messenger.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

The how and why someone developes this paraphilia would be relevant if we were talking about how to prevent it or treat it, but I wasn't talking about that. Instead, I was challenging the idea that there was no choice involved in what you do. And I stand by what I said, you could choose differently, but it's easier for you pretend your inclinations are completely natural and nothing can or should be done about it. It's easier for you to just keep making excuses about how men are naturally dominant and women are naturally sumissive. You have no real interest on what women may think about and you want to naturalise abuse by using euphemisms like "erotic play". To be honest, I have no idea why you come here to discuss about this stuff if you're so conviced that you know far better what women want than we do. Funny how you said nothing about what we said in the thread about sex stereotypes in the bedroom.

[–]Juniperius 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I do think sexual display are strong parts of masculinity and femininity.

I think it says something that I've been listening to you talk about this for like, four years and It only just hit me that you mean that you think most people get sexual pleasure from conforming to masculinity or femininity. You might consider that bare fact to be a counter argument on its own - the fact that it was such an unfamiliar and unimaginably weird idea to me, with no reflection in my own experience or anyone else I've ever talked to in my life.

Look, here's a metaphor for you. People generally like to eat, right? We have a biological drive to eat, and it is pleasurable.

Some people like to cook as well. It can be a sort of hobby. You can enjoy the anticipation, or the thought of sharing food with someone you care about, impressing someone, whatever. It's pretty common to enjoy cooking, but not as common as enjoying the actual eating, which after all has direct sensory pleasure rewarding fulfilment of a biological drive.

Not many people really enjoy grocery shopping. I do. I love wandering around the store, checking out the half price shelves, reading ingredient labels, smelling the melons. I'm aware that this makes me a bit of a weirdo. For most people grocery shopping is at best utilitarian, despite the association with food and the and the anticipation of a meal later on. At worst it's an awful chore. A lot of people I know absolutely hate it.

Sex is great. Biological drive, physical pleasure. The lead-up to sex, going on a date, or flirting with someone and getting a number or going home together, okay, there can be anticipation and so forth, but not everyone likes that part so much. Getting dressed up, that part I think is like grocery shopping. Like, you might have to do it if you want to cook and then eat a meal, but most people aren't finding it pleasurable in itself, it's just something instrumental that you've got to do if you want to get to the good part.

The entire idea of putting on a "sexual display," as you call it is actually incredibly repellent and stressful to me. I think many people are more casual about it than I am. Like most people can go into the store and say, well look, there are some good avocados today, while a few people are just getting stressed out by the whole experience. But I think it's rare to really enjoy that part, and it connects only tenuously through multiple steps of abstract connection to anything intrinsically enjoyable. I think this holds whether people are going along with the expression template that they've been handed, or the one associated with the other sex, or one that they're trying to make up as they go along.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

I think it says something that I've been listening to you talk about this for like, four years and It only just hit me that you mean that you think most people get sexual pleasure from conforming to masculinity or femininity.

I wouldn't necessarily say most. I think it's mostly a pleasure in others expression.

The thing is I do thing food is often used as a great metaphor for sex. People are forever find erotic play in food. I think that's because there are indirect comparisons.

The sensual display of food is huge part of the pleasure of food. People fuss over the source, the story, the presentation, the ripeness, the colours, the textures. It is a given that the visual pleasure, a story of where they came from, aromas, presentation of food adds to the enjoyment of the flavour. It's a literal display that adds to the pleasure.

The entire idea of putting on a "sexual display," as you call it is actually incredibly repellent and stressful to me.

But that's what men and women do all the time.

What's the food equivalent of finding display repellent? ​Wanting it all ​mixed together in a paste? Completely utilitarian? Nice cutlery, a candle, beautiful plates would be too stressful. I mean I'm joking here but you seem my point.

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

Seeing, smelling, food is certainly part of the pleasure. Hard to do that while it's still in the package, though.

I think the food equivalent of what I'm talking about, finding display repellent, is not wanting to be on the plate.