12-Year Reddit veteran, sadly acknowledging the site won't return to the way it was 7+ years ago

submitted by neovulcan from self.Introductions

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GConly 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

GC's canon and ideas as they are derived from radical feminist thinkers

Anything that didn't follow radfem canon was excised ASAP on Reddit.

Any dissent with the (minimal and shoddy) science they posted was crushed.

Sorry GC, but the overwhelming majority of scientists researching the human brain will tell you sex differences do exist, they do matter, and they aren't from socialisation. You can see them in neonates.

Just because you've found about four authors who say otherwise and you post them repeatedly in a cycle does not make them correct.

We've known how how induce male aggression, play patterns and sexual behaviour in females via extra androgens in the fetal stage since the fifties. You look ridiculous insisting that all the differences are down to socialisation. Fine and Joel are laughing stocks and their work is widely criticized. For a start multiple people have pointed out Joel's work demonstrates male and female brain can reliably be identified even with the limited criteria she used. Fine just omits huge chunks of data about testosterone and prenatal exposure because it disproves her.

Don't worry we ladies, the latest research debunks the wrong brain sex BS pretty thoroughly, but it does so while accepting brain sex differences exist, and proving homosexuality is hard wired into the brain at the same time.

It means that radfems don't get taken seriously when professionals get involved, which is a terrible thing because it's the paediatricians and scientists pulling this apart the who will eventually sort all this out. If GC keeps contradicting them and undermining them, it's just going to prolong a bad situation.

We need to move on from GC being a radical feminist sub, and make it over into an activist base for women's rights with a coherent policy that's based in good science. Not junk science.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

an activist base for women's rights with a coherent policy

I might be able to get behind something like this. maybe it should be a new space though and women from GC can join if they want. & GC's contributions to womens rights should be credited if things do go in a different direction.

I wonder now though, if this is really inconsistent with GC. And brain differences can also be due to non-genetic factors and epigenetic factors and all that. "man" and "woman" are not static things, we're always in the process of evolving. GC doesn't claim all men and all women are the same, but says these differences are due to individual personality.

They do seem to be pretty against any biological origin origin of behavioral differences though, which does seem probably not right to me, and I wish we could talk about it.

A bit off-topic, but what does the latest research say about homosexuality/sexuality?

We've known how how induce male aggression, play patterns and sexual behaviour in females via extra androgens in the fetal stage since the fifties.

did people actually... do this?? this is a bit disturbing.

It means that radfems don't get taken seriously when professionals get involved, which is a terrible thing because it's the paediatricians and scientists pulling this apart the who will eventually sort all this out. If GC keeps contradicting them and undermining them, it's just going to prolong a bad situation.

How do you think this interaction could work better?

[–]GConly 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

did people actually... do this?? this is a bit disturbing.

Did it with quite a few mammal species including primates. Started in 1953.

And brain differences can also be due to non-genetic factors and epigenetic factors and all that. "man" and "woman" are not static things

Well, you can see the brain of male and female fetuses are different upon autopsy from preterm stillbirths. That paper was quite a grim read.

You can also find that puberty levels big hormones make alterations to the brain. Which debunked the old Swaab paper that started this wrong brain sex area BS back in 94. Long story but will explain if asked.

How do you think this interaction could work better?

They've really got to drop the 'all differences are all socialisation /no brain sex' stuff. It makes me cringe every time I see it.

I know why they stick to it. If it's socialised into them you can fix it, if it's innate you give them an excuse to shrug their shoulders and claim it's natural and therefore okay/forgivable. There's also the issue that accepting innate differences exist means people accepting unequal representation in positions of power is inevitable.

From my POV, you have to know what actually causes a problem before you have a hope of fixing it, or at least coming up with effective coping strategies.

The data coming out lately is showing straight TIMs have normally masculinised brains. And that's the ones who had a childhood GD diagnosis. It's also showing sexual arousal when cross dressing is definitely an issue with a lot if them.

Personally I think we need to focus on a workable strategy based on what the public believe after being fed TRA bullshit for years.

From a lot of arguing with the average Jane libfem, they believe that all TIMs have gender dysphoria as kids, they are mostly gay, and they have wrong sex brains. They also believe most have had SRS, are in hormones, and have female violent and sex offending behaviour. They think TIMs are dying by the thousands from hate crimes, and gd kids are committing suicide all over if they aren't instantly transitioned.

They also believe all kids turning up with GD are permanently trans, don't know about the high desistance rates, and genuinely think puberty blockers are safe with no long term negative effects.

I think strategically we need to stick to presenting people with the facts in a consistent non hostile manner, carefully documenting how the TRAs are actively lying or being disingenuous.

A bit off-topic, but what does the latest research say about homosexuality/sexuality?

Varies. With females it seems to be down to getting excess testosterone. For example,, my female family members have a condition that means we produce excess t, a lot of the girls are gay or bi.

In men, they seem to be getting normal male T levels, but epigenetic changes that lower the response to it in the brain are the issue. They also seem to have an overall lower response to t because the average gay man has subtle differences to his face, and they average out at a cm or two shorter.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing this, it's all pretty interesting.

I think strategically we need to stick to presenting people with the facts in a consistent non hostile manner, carefully documenting how the TRAs are actively lying or being disingenuous.

This seems pretty doable. And it will probably help.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Saved. BTW, if you don't already have something like this, use a reference database such as Zotero. It makes it much easier to manage research, bibliography and dump those references into a text box. If you just didn't have the time here, that's fine, too. Your post was already long and informative enough, I was just wondering if you were in a similar place as I was and grew tired of pulling up the same studies over and over again. They also have a browser extension, called Zotero Connector or something similar, through which you can automatically create bibliographical references from a web page, a Wikipedia article, a Google Scholar reference, an arxiv page, a researchgate page, etc. I have come to love it and I have every study at my fingertips I could ever wish for when arguing now. It also was a huge help with my dissertation.

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

was and grew tired of pulling up the same studies over and over again.

Even more tired of being able to recall reading something and not being able to track the source down later. I have so many bookmarks on my laptop I can't find stuff on there either.

I'll have a look at Zotero, thanks for the heads up.

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

And brain differences can also be due to non-genetic factors and epigenetic factors and all that.

Except there ARE differences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXUS0MRcFWM

Click Cc for English subs.

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

I just lost a long comment because I misclicked. I'll dump a few sources here for people to know where to go down the rabbit hole from:

Satoshi Kanazawa, Gad Saad, E. B. Bax, Camille Paglia, Janice Fiamengo, Lawrence Kohlberg's moral stages, Sonja Starr's research on sentencing disparity, evolutionary psychology, Selective Service Act, Women are Wonderful effect, automatic in-group preference among women, simping behavior, etc.

https://archive.org/details/fraudoffeminism00baxerich

Hugenberg, Kurt, and Sabine Sczesny. “On Wonderful Women and Seeing Smiles: Social Categorization Moderates the Happy Face Response Latency Advantage.” Social Cognition 24, no. 5 (2006): 516–539. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kurt_Hugenberg/publication/247838456_On_Wonderful_Women_and_Seeing_Smiles_Social_Categorization_Moderates_the_Happy_Face_Response_Latency_Advantage/links/0046352af27bc710f1000000.pdf

Rudman, Laurie A., and Stephanie A. Goodwin. “Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women like Women More than Men like Men?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87, no. 4 (2004): 494.

Starr, Sonja B. “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases.” American Law and Economics Review 17, no. 1 (2014): 127–159.

I do not know if this contradicts who I am replying to. Whatever is consistent with truth and reality I support. This comment is not meant as disagreement. If we have taken any positions in the past that were nonsense, just because it seemed to strengthen our group, those should be abandoned, of course. Let science speak for itself, but I also would not rely on professionals too much, many of which have been rather spineless, as it's their job at risk, not ours. Whatever literature there is to bring more truth to the world, spread it and share it. I would be afraid to sit back, relax and assume that the establishment is going to sort itself out. The Internet has been a great tool at pushing back against mainstream narratives.

Your affectionate uncle,

Screwtape

[–]luckystar 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I am very late seeing this post but I agree 100%. I wish the name Blanchard would die in a fire. He is widely discredited and quoting him just makes GCers look like anti vaxxers or flat earthers of gender. There is enough valid criticism of gender both from a scientific/medical and philosophical/human rights view that doesn't have to rely on "but what if literally all trans women were either perverts or self hating gays" levels of narrow mindedness. It just makes GC look embarrassing.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Blanchard's typologies are holding up.

The heterosexual males doing it do seem to have a sexual motive. I don't think thier offending is much different to standard male, and I think pervert is a harsh term for it. Although I'm sure it's been thrown at them.

The homosexuals.. well I wouldn't say GC labels them as self hating, just really effeminate and tending to confirm to female norms.

Not that I really hold with a lot of what GC thinks as to why people develop gendered behaviour.

[–]luckystar 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Even if it seems true (which intuitively it does to me too), the field doesn't really accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology#Criticism I think it'd be easier to use newer data/terms because it's too easy to find arguments against Blanchard.

If nothing else it's too outdated to account for "trenders" (cringey teens on TikTok)

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

Well, Ann Lawrence really ripped Moser a new one.

You'll also note that it's TIM transactivists who really have an issue with it.

It's been rather supported by fairly recent work.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180619/

Blanchard’s prediction follows from studies that have repeatedly shown that the homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are “female-shifted” in multiple, sexually dimorphic characteristics, whereas the heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals are not

Someone recently posted a paper that claimed to show AGP wasn't a thing, and it did say that, but when you read the text it noted arousal in the hetero males.

Significantly more exclusively gynephilic than androphilic trans women reported a history of sexual arousal in relation to cross-dressing. Interestingly, a statistically non-significant trend indicated that gynephilic trans women who had not yet undergone gender affirming surgery showed the highest levels of sexual desire

I'm guessing the intact genitalia had to do with the last statement.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not just research, but real-world experience. When I run into someone in the LGBT community and trans topics come up, I send them "The Elephant in the Room" (https://medium.com/@sue.donym1984/the-elephant-in-the-room-dc822144a81b). A lot of them really connect with the article, because they know someone that fits that mold really well.

The same goes for me personally, even though I'm not a part of the alphabet community. I have people in my life where AGP just explains their behavior really well.

Some of Blanchard's pet theories may not hold up, but the basic typology is pretty close to the mark. AGP is totally a thing.

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

I have people in my life where AGP

I have a very creepy male relative that's a transvestite dominatrix. Nasty sort (sadistic and manipulative): makes my skin crawl. He keeps a carving knife under his pillow, obvious mental health issues.

He's close to coming out as a TIM, I swear. Also married to a doormat of a woman.

The idea of people like him in changing rooms with young girls scares the shit out of me.