Are Trans Women Real Women? NYC Women's March 2021

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-19T18:37:26+00:00

They never say "gender identity", they always say "gender" in its place. Sex & gender are only different if gender refers to masculinity & femininity, but they obviously aren't using that meaning. They obviously mean to say: "gender identity & biological sex are not the same thing".

Of course what they understands to be "gender identity" should probably be called 'cross-gender identity', even though their idea of what constitutes a "cross-gender identity" is the mere desire to be the opposite sex, which isn't an identity, let alone a claim to womanhood.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-14T00:29:28+00:00

The gender-swap cult co-opt 'gender identity' to refer to a 'cross-gender identity' which is determined by simply having the "strong desire" to be the opposite sex.

I don't think gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. It's just a sign of latent homosexuality. It's not something that exists outside the modern day West, so it's not something anyone can be said to be born with. However, the transsexual is probably a homosexual throwback, as smaller populations in the past would have left gay people with little choice but to conform to heteronormativity in such a way that they could still have same-sex pairings.

Maybe pretending to be a woman works for the individual, temporarily, but any sort of movement should concern itself with the acceptance of feminine gay men (autogynaephiles can do one). Chandler's dad was a feminine gay man, so was Dill from the Crying Game. I feel like society is less accepting nowadays of people like Kai Decadence than they would have been without the trans movement advocating that "TWAW".

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-13T11:49:04+00:00

The question is too personal. It has garnered personal responses. Now anyone's responses to those responses are either going to be curtailed by prioritised politeness or else come off as rude & insulting.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-13T08:37:45+00:00

I think better formulations might be:

How can a body & an identity be "mismatched" (what has one got to do with the other)?

or

How can gender be both an immutable identity & an ever-changing social construct?

Male biology begets male socialisation, which begets male behavioural trends, even within the population who claim to have a cross-sex identity. I guess you could distinguish the sexed body & the resulting cultural conformity to the role associated with it as male vs. masculine, respectively, but most people think of masculinity & femininity as being limited to the superficial (the way you dress, walk & talk), even within feminism, or gender theory.

Judith Butler for instance quotes Simone de Beauvoir when talking about femininity. So at first it seems like she is using Beauvoir's understanding of femininity: the conditioning received by girls, but Butler suggests that anyone can be feminine (implying that even people who haven't been conditioned the way that girls have can be feminine), which seems to suggest she is using a colloquial definition of femininity, making her interpretation as hamfisted as Bruce Jenner's.

What is femininity? Is it limited to a glittery exterior? Is it female socialisation? Is it both? Is it even more than that? What if we extended the definition of femininity to include all of the roles women are expected to embody? In that case this new stipulated definition of femininity would also refer to things like sexual objectification & the nurturing of children, the elderly, partners, each other & anyone else who happens to be passing by – two huge features closely associated with women, but almost never associated with femininity

So if you reduced femininity down to its root (using the word femininity to refer to how an androcentric society views womanhood) it would come down to five types of objectification for male use:

a decorative status symbol for men
a fetishised masturbation aid for men
a de-clawed, domesticated, infantilised pet for men
an indentured servant for men
a vessel for men to perpetuate themselves

If that's the social construct, can it be an identity? Notice how female biology is also interwoven into femininity. If someone is inculcated with these ideas from birth, the same way men expect the above from women is the same way women expect it from themselves & each other. Every word is culturally contaminated, including woman. Within a scientific context woman is just a female adult within the human race, but dictionaries don't include connotation. If society is androcentric/patriarchal & therefore systemically sexist, then the people within it are at least implicitly sexist, which would include their view on womanhood. In this way being a normative woman & being normatively feminine are exactly the same thing.

We are all aware of sexist slurs, so there is no need for me to repeat them for clarification, but in a sexist society these are not slurs, but synonyms for 'woman'. 'Woman' is just a formal way of saying all those slurs. Some girls try to opt out of this by calling themselves non-binary & when that doesn't work they call themselves men. The word 'woman' is not the source of the sexist contamination, but as long as it is contaminated, it will continue to contribute to sexist ideas. Women have sexist notions of what being a woman means (which I have previously referred to collectively as femininity), so identifying themselves as a woman is like a positive feedback circuit of these sexist notions of femininity, influencing their identity.

The obligatory "but what about exceptions?"

Obviously almost no woman will perfectly conform to all five ways of objectification, but there is certainly a pattern of behaviour within the female population that conforms to femininity. So the questions are: are behavioural trends within a demographic the result of a shared social identity? And is identity the result of socialisation? If the answer is yes to both, then "woman" can be an identity.

DSDs:

The only way woman could be a cross-sex identity is if male biology is mistaken for female biology "from birth", by everyone including the child itself. Then the domino effect I outlined in my opening paragraph would go in the other direction. This is the case for women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. It could be argued that their biology can be said to be more female than male, but that would be ignoring the fact that nature produces organisms that can reproduce asexually. This "default setting" would look a lot more female to our eyes than male (even though it cannot be said to be female, confusingly, science usually refers to it as female nonetheless), bc if a human could asexually reproduce it would require primary & secondary sex characteristics that currently only exist in the female population.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-11T16:28:17+00:00

Gender has two meanings (predominantly: male/female, or to a lesser extent: masculinity/femininity), which can be found in everyday language, in academia, in the dictionary, everywhere, since at least the 1880s, apparently. So you're asking me to ignore the meanings of the word & allow the gender-swap cult to appropriate it. As for the name of the sub, QT & GC don't agree on the definition of gender, that's a major part of the contention. According to QT gender = gender identity = the desire to be the opposite sex proves you are the opposite sex. So I assume "GC" either refers to being critical of this definition, since GC is a reaction to QT, alternatively "GC" could refer to being critical of masculinity/femininity.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-11T15:47:48+00:00

If the word "gender" serves no purpose in describing sex stereotypes, since you say feminists never even used the word (since the term 'sex stereotypes' made it redundant), then why should it matter that I use the word 'gender' to refer to sex, in order to a) better differentiate biological sex from sexual intercourse, b) speak the same language as everyone else, whether colloquial or academic?

There is a chapter in the Female Eunuch called 'Gender', & it's not on "sex stereotypes", but like the OED, Germaine Greer isn't American, so it doesn't count, I guess?

Anyway, I did a Google Scholar search, customising the range from 1919-1985, confining the search to: "gender" -transsexual -identity -masculinity -linguistics resulting in about 76,800 results, as far as I could tell, gender was not referring to grammar or sex stereotypes in the majority of cases, but biological sex instead.

I asked you whether there are any American 2nd wave feminists who make the distinction between gender & sex, defining the former as "sex stereotypes". You didn't answer the question. However, I looked up Kate Millet's Sexual Politics, bc I remembered she had a useful glossary at the end of the book. She quotes Robert Stoller directly, using his distinction between gender (masculinity & femininity) & sex (male & female). So you could have used that example, except that, she says she agrees with Stoller & Money on gender identity being the result of gendered conditioning, which might have made the example too inconvenient for you to mention, presuming you still reject the aforementioned notion. So Stoller really seems to be the originator of the distinction you're referring to. It turns out Dworkin quotes Money on gender identity too.

What? That hangup/neurosis is theirs and yours, not mine. I've never depicted biology as obscene. That's on you & the POV you're defending.

Tsk, tsk, reading comprehension issues. Sex (the word, the connotation, the definition used in the majority of cases to mean intercourse) is obscene to the mainstream, biological sex (male & female) is taboo to the trans cult. Saying "sex" in place of "gender" helps the trans cult make biological sex obscene to the general public. I'm saying this for the third time in a row now.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-09T04:33:37+00:00

How can I be talking about what bullshit gender is as word if I do not use it?

"How do I prove that a flute isn't a hammer without constantly using a flute to hammer nails into the wall, thereby convincing everyone but myself that I think it's a hammer?"

Just follow your own standards & stop using gender, & yes, that includes "transgender". The trans cult don't hold a patent on the word & you haven't been employed to enforce it. I can use gender the way everyone else does: to mean biological sex.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-09T03:59:56+00:00

In a different demographic which can’t be soundly extrapolated. That’s the leap.

No, it's the same demographic. It's a like with like comparison. Because the self-reported attempted suicide demographic were students I sought out the student suicide attempt-to-completion ratio.

You sent an untargeted link to a 300 page non searchable pdf. I’m not reading a 300 page report to find where you ignored something about that statistic

I gave you the page number, so not 300 pages, just 1.

You can’t be made not transgender but you can be made to pretend, just like you can be pressured into pretending you aren’t gay. It doesn’t make you not gay or not trans.

90% desistance rate says otherwise. Pretending is what they were doing before they desisted. Pretending is what the ones who failed to desist are doing. Secondly, gay isn't an identity, it's an orientation.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-09T03:41:17+00:00

I'm aware that words can have more than one meaning. One such word is gender.

Mainstream (99% of the population): gender = bio sex (99% of the time), sex = sexual intercourse (99% of the time) – basically, there are multiple meanings, but there is also a hierarchy of these meanings.

The trans cult has a better PR campaign than feminism does. It makes more sense to join forces with the mainstream, bc regular people don't get direct exposure to gender critical feminism, they've got to go through the mainstream filter first, & the trans ideology filter second, at which point you've lost most of them bc it's got too many layers of complexity to it.

You play into the trans cult's hands by saying "sex" in place of "gender", by helping them make biology obscene.

You really think masculinity is half the conversion within 2nd wave feminist discourse? Not even close. Masculinity is a pointless word anyway, it's like having a single word that describes every visible colour of the colour-spectrum put together, except pink. Men don't really have sex stereotypes holding them back, hence male-privilege: spared sex-based injustice. So if masculinity is just lack of femininity, then 'femininity' should suffice.

In English, the way in which the language is gendered (masculine & feminine pronouns & names) are directly describing biological sex.

I don't accept that it was 2nd wave feminists who made the distinction between gender & sex, or that Judith Butler popularised the replacement of sex with gender, or that John Money was the one who started using gender to replace sex. Do you know of a 2nd wave feminist work that defines gender as not sex, but sex stereotypes?

Stoller is the only one I've seen who calls the distinction between biology & social determinism sex & gender, respectively, but he seems to imply that this distinction is already in use (either way, some non-feminist seems to be the originator). Butler alludes to it, but she doesn't define gender as socially determined, instead she opts for a definition that has no substance. She thinks being a woman & being feminine are synonymous, but that bc the definition of femininity isn't always the same everywhere, she concludes that it doesn't exist, leading her to believe that 'woman' doesn't exist, it's just a self-determined performance, like an idea in the public domain. Neither GC feminists nor the trans cult seem to agree with either of these definitions though, so why does everyone jump to the defence of the distinction between sex & gender?

You may say you believe that gender is not male & female, but masculinity & femininity, but how did masculinity & femininity come to be known as "gender"? Was there perhaps already a close association between the word gender & the sexes? How did that happen? Apparently the OED defined gender as sex in the 19th century. So you claimed it's a modern invention to call sex gender, when in fact gender has always meant sex. So if we're going to go back to "the original" way of using these terms then gender would still end up as the correct term for the sexes.

Any use of gender to mean sex stereotypes, exclusively, is either pretty obscure, or pretty recent. I don't even really see how you being American, & a second-wave feminist, from the latter half of the 20th century, justifies the use of the word gender to mean sex stereotypes & not sex, bc I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that American second wave feminists from the latter half of the 20th century used gender to mean sex stereotypes exclusively & not sex.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-07T10:29:59+00:00

I find your qualifying remark to be most confusing of all. "Cross-gender self-reassignment is misgendering" is pretty self-explanatory. Changing it to "cross-sex self-reassignment is mis-sexing" would diminish the impact. The whole point was co-opting QT's terms, for once.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-07T10:13:46+00:00

lol what logical leaps? 100 suicide attempts leads to 1 death, according to the source I provided. Where is the leap? Based on that info we can estimate that the suicide rate is below 1% – an estimate you said was "impossible". There is no reason to think that suicidal people who self-reassign themselves as the opposite sex are better or worse at completing suicide than the average suicidal person is. I mean, men are better at completing suicide than women are, so if these transJenner men really are women deep down then their attempts would be less successful than if they were actually men all along. This would only further reduce the suicide rate though.

If you were going to doubt the 8% stat anyway, regardless of what any source had to say, why did you even bother asking for a source?

If you can be socially pressured out of being transgender, then that's only further evidence that it's not an identity, isn't it?

That's some pretty Orwellian "conversion therapy" – the kind that has you accepting yourself for what you are, instead of attempting sex-reassignment as the opposite sex, for the "reason" that bodies & identities should "match", bc sometimes bodies & identities don't match apparently, & these need to always be made to match, bc a mismatched body to an identity leads to "torture" & "death" if left untreated, even though 90% of the time, untreated it just leads to desistance. So if identity can change so easily & does so so frequently, why the fck should changing the body to match the identity be the goal, instead of the other way around? Uh-oh, now we're back at unanswered question 9b again.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-07T09:43:02+00:00

"Similarly a person who thinks their gender does not match their obvious and observable sex" – talk about fuzzy language, that's beyond fuzzy, it's so sloppy it's meaningless. You can't say gender has no meaning, but continue using it as if it has one. How can someone feel that a meaningless word "doesn't match their sex"? Obviously the word has a meaning, their actions reveal as much, even if their words don't.

If every time we are referring to the male & females sexes we are to say 'sex' for accuracy's sake, then even "transgender people with a gender identity that doesn't match their sex" needs to be changed to "transsexuals with a sex identity that doesn't match their sex". Please use '"sex" yourself first, consistently, before urging others to do so.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-07T09:22:10+00:00

Of course it's a lie, the fact that you back-pedalled from "cure" to "help" is your own admission to having lied.

Point is "assigned intersex" makes no sense, since "sex assignment" as either male or female is what happens to infants with DSDs. If a child's DSD is recognised & not "corrected" in any way or categorised incorrectly, then it's not "assigned", in fact it's the exact opposite. Anyway, stop bringing up DSDs bc they are never relevant. Anyway, conception determines someone as male or female, it's not assigned. Some people role-play the opposite sex & claim it makes them the opposite sex. This "transgender" identity has yet to be substantiated.

In that you post you linked I made the claim that it's homophobic erasure & appropriation for the trans cult to misgender all historical & non-Western gay male populations as women. No idea how you think a lack of the mythical transgender people negatively affects gay people.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-07T09:03:07+00:00

Any time you see gender-neutral language, like 'kids' & 'teens', then you know everyone is imagining boys anyway. "Trans kids & teens" doesn't necessitate the inclusion of girls. Also, so many of them identify as "non-binary", which no one takes seriously, which is probably half the reason they opt for identifying as binary boys.

The fact that ROGD appeared suddenly, recently, when it never used to exist, I think is a pretty good indicator that it will go away on its own. There are underlying problems that cause girls to self-harm in so many different ways. Until the underlying problem is found & solved they'll continue to find new & creative ways to harm themselves. The main problem is institutions sanctioning & assisting in their self-harm. However, veganism is also an identity-craze right now which the whole world accommodates for too, & that's definitely going to become an extinct fad, eventually.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-07T08:48:21+00:00

There has always been overlap. Unisex can refer to androgynous fashion. Someone's facial features or figure can be described as 'feminine', even though what is meant is "biologically female-looking". And would you say a girl receives feminine socialisation? Even a masculine girl? Or would you say female socialisation? Gender has had two meanings for a long time now. Pronouns are masculine or feminine, but they are used to describe even male & female animals respectively.

You can't say "sex-identity" without people thinking you're talking about a person's sex-life, which demonstrates a further problem: what would happen to all the times you want to talk about sexual topics? Sexual is the adjective, but the noun is sex.

Then there is the fact that practically no child will ever hear the word sex or be allowed to use it of they do, but they will more than likely hear 'gender'. Sex is taboo in our culture, biological sex is taboo to the trans-cult, so any feminist who agrees to only refer to the male & female sexes collectively as 'sex', is complicit in making a person's male or female status obscene.

I don't know what's stopping feminist theorists from just using the terms female vs. femininity, rather than "sex & gender". It eliminates most language issues & makes the theory more accessible to regular people.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-06T14:05:25+00:00

Those opinions have nothing to do with feminism though. No two feminists are going to agree 100% of the time on feminist topics, let alone non-feminist ones. But I guess you're saying she has surpassed a threshold you're unwilling to support (dipping into Jordan Peterson/Alex Jones territory)? Just place her lower down on your list of feminist content creators.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-06T12:10:25+00:00

I never said that the DSM-V is the only authoritative voice, only that it reflects a consensus & is up-to-date. Normally I only get flack from the sex-reassignment cult for quoting the DSM-V because it validates autogynaephila more than a few times.

Abigail Shier is pretty much an expert on ROGD & she has said that she believes it'll disappear in about 10 years & I agree with her. The ROGD social contagion has more in common with the emo-craze than it does with the homosexual throwbacks that transsexuals are.

I agree that teenage girls are relevant to the discussion (they are the majority of suicide attempts, medical mutilations, & detransitioners), but I felt like the way they were being included was in a way that veered too far from the topic e.g. demonstration on how high the attempted suicide rate is among girls who aren't self-assigned gender-swap role-players, in the middle of me trying to point out that suicide is rare among male dysphorics & shouldn't be confused with failed suicide attempts.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-06T10:56:25+00:00

How is it "impossible" to estimate the rate of suicide? You could literally use the self-reported attempted suicide to estimate it. Just compare it with the average student's self-reported attempted suicide rate: 14% vs. completed suicide by the average student "There are about 100 non-fatal suicide attempts to every 1 suicide". So if 1% of attempts result in suicide that still puts the suicide rate under 1%.

Meanwhile there is an 8% detransition rate. Therefore detransition is more common than these diminishingly rare suicides, making sex-reassignment unwarranted, while justifying its discouragement. Not to mention the only way to desist from gender dysphoria (thereby supposedly lowering the likelihood of suicidality) is to desist from cross-sex self-reassignment.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-06T07:55:18+00:00

I don't take issue with you bringing this to everyone's attention the way you have, except for the part where you make the judgement that BiR isn't fit to be a mod.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-06T07:48:34+00:00

Would you prefer if the term was mis-sexing?

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-05T10:55:15+00:00

It depends on how you understand "misgendering". If someone is a man via biology, socialisation, privilege, behavioural patterns etc. then calling such a man a woman for whatever reason would be misgendering. Cross-gender self-assignment is misgendering.

'Man' is a word to describe adult human males. It's innocuous, not hate speech. If you regard gender so taboo & regard it as criminally vulgar, why should that be anyone else's problem? You can create your own stipulative definition of 'man' if you want, but what gives anyone the right to erase the definition of man that refers to adult members of the male sex?

Your demands are less reasonable than the content of her reply. According to the rules BiR just needs to edit her comment, which can only be enforced by another mod.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-05T10:32:16+00:00

As of this time, transition is the only cure for dysphoria.

That's a lie. Transition does NOT cure dysphoria. Not transitioning & accepting yourself for what you are is the only cure, it's called desistance & is defined by the lack of dysphoria.

People are assigned male, female or intersex

People are identified as male or female (is intersex a gender identity to you?) Some people assign themselves as the opposite sex in later life.

I do believe trans people have existed as long as humans have

This is a faith based belief. There have always been people (usually temporarily) who wished to be the opposite sex, but the current version of "transgender" is supposed to mean this mere wish to be the opposite sex is evidence that they are the opposite sex on some level – such people have never existed.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-05T10:17:21+00:00

1- Identity is formed by nature & nurture. Self-Identification as the opposite sex is like identifying as a goth, or a video game character, or a Dungeons & Dragons character. It's role-play. Wanting to be the opposite sex isn't an identity. Certainly the mere wish of a person to be the opposite sex isn't evidence that that person is somehow the opposite sex on elusive some level. There is no difference between a man who wishes to be a woman & a man who identifies as a woman, since in any other context you'd claim the former man to be an "egg".

2- Oh, so at least you recognise that 'man' & 'woman' are each single-sex terms.

3- So it's inaccurate to say "sex & gender are not the same thing", which is an understatement, as the aforementioned mantra is the exact opposite of the truth. Sex & gender are literally the same thing.

4- What accounts for this? The evidence seems to point out that self-ID is BS. Their own actions misgender them louder than anyone's words ever could. Maybe we should instead of calling them "trans-womxyn", we should be calling them 'transgender men'. Maybe language should reflect reality, instead of an ideology that has been proven wrong.

You skipped 5.

6- I'm the one who told you that, I added that gay people's brains also resembled the opposite sex's, therefore this evidence means that either transgender people are gay, or gay people are transgender.

7- "cis woman" doesn't include all adult members of the female sex, since it excludes the ones who identify as transgender.

8- It's sexist appropriation to make single-sex terms unisex.

9a- You just confirmed what I said. Transgender identification transitions same-sex attraction into "heterosexuality", making homophobic conversion necessary to "gender affirmation".

9b- There is no evidence of anyone ever being "genuinely trans". Anyone engaging in appropriation should be pressured out of it. Should we stop discriminating against minstrels since they are obviously genuinely trans?

10- According to your standards? Does this ban drag queens & butch lesbians then? lol

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-05T09:39:59+00:00

The DSM-V is a living document, updated annually, it's the authority where consensus on the transgender topic is concerned.

Girls transitioning is a phenomenon called ROGD & is just a trend that will disappear as suddenly in about 10 years from now as it appeared about 10 years ago. ROGD shouldn't be confused with early-onset dysphoria. Treating two different things as if they are the same is not equality or redressing the balance.

I'm not the one who shifted discussion. You are actually the one who butted in (twice). I'm the one who introduced the topic of suicide rates (after CMOW said detransition was vanishingly rare, I pointed out that so is suicide), which CMOW predictably shifted to self-reported attempted suicides in a patronising attempt to bolster the suicide rate (by diluting it). That was the first time you, disappointingly, butted in in order to take the bait of talking about self-reported attempted suicides, instead of just sticking with suicides. Once I pointed out the distinction between suicide & non-suicide to CMOW, you butted in a second time "correcting" me on my use of "early-onset dysphorics", at which point you introduced girls who attempted suicide.

Just bc I wish to stay on topic doesn't mean the suicide rate of male dysphorics is all that matters in the world forever. We recognise that men & women are different. So why should a discussion about one include the other, when they have practically nothing in common?

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-05T08:04:18+00:00

You already said that. As I have said multiple times now, a self-reported attempted suicide rate ≠ a suicide rate. The suicide rate is under 1%, making it "vanishingly rare". Seeing as detransition is more common, instead of using the suicide rate to justify transition, the detrans rate should be used to justify discouraging transition.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-03T08:02:38+00:00

1- by "identifying" you must mean role-playing.

2- include relevant excerpt pls

3- How do cross-SEX hormones alleviate GENDER dysphoria, if "sex & gender are not the same thing"?

4- https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22transgender+sex+offender%22&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ5_LR363zAhVmhv0HHV6iC2EQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1172&bih=629&dpr=1

5- Simply referring to male transsexuals as "trans-womxyn" doesn't make them women, you've got to actually prove that they are a) not men & b) women. However, my actual question is still unanswered.

6- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/brains-of-gay-people-resemble-those-of-straight-people-of-opposite-sex

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/

You must have slept through 2008.

7- Again: what WORD for ADULT member of the female sex?

8- Making single-sex terms unisex is indeed co-opting them. Isn't this co-opting of single-sex terms sexism via erasure & appropriation?

9a- Exclusively same-sex attracted male transsexuals are referred to as "straight women" by your cult. You didn't know that?

9b- So why not encourage desistance, exclusively? Why should transition ever be an option?

10- Are you saying everyone has the right to be in gay & lesbian spaces?

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-03T07:31:46+00:00

I'm using the terminology outlined in the DSM-V. You can divide people who want to be the opposite sex into two groups: early-onset dysphorics & late-onset dysphorics. As I said in my original reply: early-onset dysphorics are typically male homosexuals, according to the DSM-V.

Suicide attempts ≠ suicide rates. Girls 12-17 ≠ men & boys who want to be the opposite sex.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-03T07:16:00+00:00

I very clearly stated that 29% of the male ones (which are the ones under discussion) self-report attempting suicide: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e20174218?sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token The actual suicide rate however is under 1% as the other link I provided shows.

Combing isn't necessary, you just do a search of the document for 'de-trans', or 'eight percent', it's in chapter 7 p. 111.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-02T12:50:20+00:00

Making 'woman' a unisex term makes it redundant.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-02T12:46:53+00:00

He'd need a man-brain to think of that.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-02T08:40:44+00:00

by "correct" you mean: preferred?

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-02T08:24:57+00:00

When I said early-onset dysphorics that's what I meant.

If we are discussing suicide rates then I'm not interested in suicide ideation rates masquerading as suicide rates. Every study has it's flaws, however the one I supplied has the least flaws since it's actually on completed suicides of men who identified as the opposite sex, unlike your latest link/excerpt which is about suicide ideation again, & it's not even on the demographic we're discussing.

SnowAssMan · 2021-10-01T12:55:51+00:00

Self-reported, attempted suicide rates (which is 29% among male dysphorics) are not suicide rates. 100% of the sample in the study you are quoting was alive. Those rates go down with age, & are literally exactly the same percentage for LGB people, which makes sense since early-onset dysphorics are almost exclusively male homosexuals.

The suicide rate among male cross-sex role-players is 0.8% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317390/?fbclid=IwAR0KyMfRJG50rPKZOId8nhH27eXQJiBr-vX7_LkZ5-k2HtmQF1A9wnUFooA

8% detransition https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-30T13:45:53+00:00

They are nowhere near the detransition rates, which are between 2-8%. Suicide rates are well-under 1%.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-30T08:22:56+00:00

Suicide is vanishingly rare, so how can it be used to warrant encouraging transition, but detransition can't be used to warrant encouraging desistance?

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-30T08:17:52+00:00

I completely sympathise with being the victim of American cultural imperialism. It's even worse in the English-speaking world bc American garbage can seep in unnoticed a lot easier.

I'm not going to hand the self-ID cult 'gender', bc it would be giving them legitimacy & integrity. The word gender is used 99% of the time to refer to sex, while the word sex is used 99% of the time to refer to sexual intercourse. By favouring the use of sex over gender I'm basically speaking a different dialect to everyone else. This is why the clown cult appropriates terms already in circulation, it gives their ideology more currency. Notice how they call women & girls "natal female" or "assigned female", while never including a qualifier when describing someone like Bruce Jenner as female. It's important to be steadfast & not capitulate on this. They haven't got a word or definition for what they are talking about, which is why they coops the word gender & hope to ride in on their trojan horse that way.

In Spanish it makes sense to abolish the word, it doesn't in English though, bc in doing so we'll merely be erasing the sexes (bc we'll have no way of referring to them apart from "assigned birth sex" or something equally ludicrous).

Socialisation is firmly anchored to sex, so rather than creating an opening for role-play to replace identity the concept of socialisation only further undermines it. Clearly they are more invested in proving that they can change sex via their supposed brainsex, or cross-sex hormones in addition to creating the notion that "sex is a spectrum". Does that mean focusing on biological sex to define girls & women should be abandoned for giving gender-minstrels good innings? Of course not. Because their interpretations are a complete twisting of the truth, same goes for socialisation.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-29T18:03:09+00:00

I mean I'm more gender abolitionist I guess, but I thought that's what most GC feminists are.

I don't think you need to ask for a definition without stereotypes. Never understood why every feminist seems to make this qualification to the question. Personally never witnessed someone ever even answer the question, let alone using stereotypes.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-29T14:54:56+00:00

1- isn't gender incongruence defined as a strong desire to be the opposite sex?

2- what's the difference between men & women though?

3- but you said gender is just identity & social interaction, what has their sex got to do with it?

4- where are the female ones?

5- again, you said being a woman is a matter of "identity & social interaction", if you're not passing as a woman, but passing as a cross-dresser in your social interactions then how are you "living as a woman"?

6- No what?

7- Incoherent & inaccurate since "AFAB people" would include girls & I asked for a WORD for ADULT members of the female sex. The only reason I'm using "adult members of the female sex" for this question is bc if I say women, or female women lol, you'll pretend not to know what I'm talking about.

8- How is making every single-sex term unisex in order to affirm some men's cross-sex role-play not coopting?

9a- hello? transition offers gay kids the opportunity to identify as straight. Transition is literally a synonym of conversion.

9b- If desistance is "dysphoria stopping" & transition doesn't result in desistance then we need to find out what does & do that, instead of transition. I'm sure if former minstrels can survive without blackening up, then male dysphorics can manage without pinkening up.

10- Pretty sure trans-men want to be considered women, hence the 'trans' part. A transgender man is a man who identifies as the opposite sex. Why is it so offensive to be called a man or woman if you don't identify as such when there is no real difference between men & women? If the only difference is identity & social interaction then how can a "belief" that someone is one or the other be transphobic? Surely the reverse is true, if you consider a man a woman purely for embodying stereotypes then that would be a sexist belief, regardless of how committed the man is to his full-time cross-sex cosplay.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-29T11:59:19+00:00

3- Desistance is literally defined as lack of dysphoria i.e. it cures it https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784/full

9- It's not necessary to read all of the DSM-V, only the parts on gender dysphoria. One of the sources it quoted had a 100% desistance rate. The lowest stat I've seen was still over 60%.

10- it's just inconsistent with QT ideology. I'm not going to assume you knew that.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-29T11:49:06+00:00

I mean, how is Spanish relevant here? If it has always been called sex, then gender doesn't even exist in Spanish. Wouldn't that make it easier to make a distinction between women & cross-sex cosplayers?

Sex & socialisation are always paired according to the norms of our culture, so just pointing out that they are separate doesn't mean the latter can be independent from the former & somehow attach itself to the opposite sex.

The distinction between sex & socialisation has always been important within feminism, bc the alternative, conservative view was that femininity was biologically determined, with the libertarian view attributing it to free will. I can see how the conservative views might support self-ID ideology, but the concept that primary socialisation impacts social identity most does anything but, quite the reverse in fact. Primary socialisation determining gender identity undermines the idea that cross-sex role-play determines it.

Definitions don't need to include all that information. The same way that despite sexism being a reality for women it's not going to become part of the definition of 'woman'. Simply acknowledging the impact of cultural conditioning on identity isn't the same as defining humans according to stereotypes.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-29T11:10:59+00:00

1- that's certainly the GC view of men like Bruce Jenner

2- and the other 1%? does the difference suddenly change for them?

3- cross-sex hormones don't cure dysphoria, only desistance can do that, which transition hampers.

4- just do a google image search for "transgender sex offender", or is google images also a GC think tank?

5- ...I mean, that's the truscum view

6- again if brainsex is evidence of identity then either HSTS' are all gay guys, or all gay guys are women. The alternative is to chuck out the "evidence" & dispose of the "brainsex" argument altogether.

7- I think you mean law rather than language, since everyone still uses gender to refer to the sexes.

8- how is making every single-sex term unisex not erasure of the female sex?

9a- but even the DSM-V quotes a high desistance rate. is the highest scientific authority on the topic wrong? are you the authority? or is self-ID ideology anti-science?

b- according to the DSM-V up to 100% of early-onset dysphorics desist. Surely we should be looking into what is hindering the remainder from desisting, instead of assuming that "young trans people" are a real thing.

10- a wholly GC view

(I obviously asked too many questions. Apologies at all)

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-28T06:54:49+00:00

I think it unwise to allow the self-ID cult to co-opt any terms, including gender. Gender has two meanings: the male & female sexes, or the masculine & feminine constructs. When the self-ID cult refers to gender however, they are not referring to either of these definition, but a third undefined definition (bc definitions are "exclusionary" = make their ideology vulnerable to attack). Everyone uses the word 'gender' to refer to biological sex, the majority of the time, within colloquial language, as well as academia, even the self-ID cult often does this:

gender inequality (inequality between the sexes)

gender ratios (male sex:female sex ratio)

gender reveal party (revealing the biological sex of a baby)

"gender & covid-19" (the different ways in which the virus & vaccine effect male vs. female biology)

gendered (sexist)

gender dysphoria (depression based on the mismatch between a person's sex & their preferred sex, treated with cross-sex hormones)

It's a mammoth task for the self-ID cult to change the definition of gender to nothing, why help it along? If they monopolise the language they monopolise the discourse, which always wins over debates.

Regarding foreign languages: some languages like German don't make the distinction between gender (sex) & linguistic gender. If someone's sex is female then it's "weiblich", likewise if a word is feminine it's called "weiblich". We should try to get them to adopt the word "feminin".

It's sex AND socialisation, not sex OR socialisation, it's not an either/or thing. In fact the latter is dependant on the former. It's not exactly a respective cause & effect either though, more of a catalyst & effect. Both nature & nurture impact identity to the exclusion of all else. The same way that the Bruce Jenner's of the world are not female, biologically, is the same way that they are not female socially either. So I'm not undermining biological sex at all, you're the one trying to undermine socialisation.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-27T02:34:19+00:00

There isn't a human whose identity hasn't been shaped by culture, likewise our culturally-saturated upbringing is gendered. Billion-dollar industries rely on demographics following behavioural trends. Men & women generally follow two respective, & distinct behavioural trends. These behaviours are not biologically determined (unless you're talking to an evolutionary biologist), they are socially determined. Men & women aren't defined by stereotypes, but social identities exist for which sex is only the catalyst, not the cause.

Cross-sex identity isn't possible. If you're born & raised American, no amount of learning Japanese culture can erase & replace that, same goes for gender. Bruce Jenner cannot be a woman without every man being a woman.

The only way a genuine cross-sex identity could be possible is if everyone was fooled from birth that you are the opposite sex, so I guess it only exists in women with androgen insensitive syndrome, since they are technically male, but have female primary & secondary sex characteristics (apart from internal, male gonads) & so receive the gendered upbringing that any girl would have received.

Even though there is a difference between gender as a social construct & gender as a biological sex, which feminists insist on referring to as "gender & sex" respectively, for some inexplicable reason (everyone else just calls both 'gender'), there is always a complimentary correlation between the two, with no mismatches. The self-ID cult have never substantiated this so-called mismatch in individuals who identify as the opposite sex.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-25T16:24:39+00:00

Gender is a nature vs. nurture debate, some parts of gender identity are biologically determined, others socially determined. That's how identity is formed.

Self-IDing as the opposite sex is following an entirely different view, one that rejects the scientifically sanctioned nature vs. nurture debate, in favour of "individual freedom of choice". It's the idea that you can independently determine your own identity. This is the self-ID cult's view of gender, which is actually perfectly concordant with libertarianism.

Sex & the resulting socialisation into the gender norms associated with it form identity, which is why a 'cross-sex identity" cannot exist. It's just role-play

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-25T16:08:38+00:00

I don't see the need to start questioning what is a woman or a man from a non biological perspective when that is exactly what lead to all the pro-TRA laws and policies

That's like saying 2nd wave feminism lead to self-ID bc a lot of it is a nature vs. nurture debate regarding femaleness vs. femininity. What lead to self-ID is the adoption of Thatcherism. Thatcher is notorious for having said "there is no such thing as society only individual men & women" – this is the guide to choice-feminism (self-ID's staunchest ally). Choice feminism believes every individual's choice is an exercise in agency. "Freedom of choice" is the right-wing answer to the nature & nurture debate, bc the right is generally scientifically illiterate. So when malestream feminists adopt this philosophy then they are no different from patriarchists.

I don't think its unsafe to examine the connotation of words, since the root cause of self-IDing as the opposite sex is in individualism. It's futile to curtail ones thoughts or words in an attempt to stop them from being twisted, bc anything you say can be & will be misinterpreted, deliberately as well as unintentionally.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-25T01:01:57+00:00

'Man' used to just mean human, but on some level it still does. If I tell you about a person I met, without mentioning whether they are male or female you will imagine a man. If I say the word 'kid', you are going to imagine a male kid, bc by imagining a gender-neutral kid you imagined a male kid. That means that male is gender neutral & gender neutral is male.

Every word is culturally-contaminated. Yes, the denotation of 'man' is still adult human male. Nature recognises two sexes, but society only made one gender: femininity. 'Masculinity' is just what our culture considers positive, neutral, as well as the extreme opposite of femininity (basically everything, except femininity). 'Masculinity' is a word for something that doesn't really exist. Creating a label for "masculinity" is like creating a label for all the colours of the rainbow put together, except pink.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-25T00:50:21+00:00

That's only if you allow the self-ID cult to co-opt 'gender'. Gender is an identity formed like any other: nature & nurture. If self-ID isn't concordant with nature & nurture, like in the case of a cross-sex self-identification, then it's role-play, not an identity.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-24T08:57:36+00:00

Every time a female-only anything is made then society labels the formerly unisex (but never defined) thing male. I guess, bc our culture is obsessed with "binaries" & "opposites". These retroactive changes can be seen outside of gender too, like ethnicity. "White" was never an ethnicity until after all the others were categorised as such. Labelling norms disguises them, makes them blend in with the othered. Do "white", & "man" really exist as concepts, or do they simply define a lack, or like the word "normal", only exist for practical reasons to distinguish from "abnormal" & even help emphasise abnormality?

I may be overthinking this...

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-24T08:46:25+00:00

Too be honest, I think if "homogenderal" & "romantic orientation" ever became mainstream it might just help acceptance of the LGB community.

I strongly suspect a huge part of mainstream acceptance of this "transgender" identity thing, even going so far as calling their kids trans, is because the self-ID movement changed the name from transSEXUAL to transGENDER. As a result parents would prefer to think of their kids as trans than gay (despite almost all early-onset dysphorics & kids with a cross-sex identification desisting & being gay), bc 'gay' has a sexual connotation in many people's minds, due to terms like homoSEXUALITY & sexual orientation.

Heck, it might even hinder the "trans kids" narrative, if an LGB possibility became more palatable to parents.

SnowAssMan · 2021-09-22T21:05:05+00:00

"Men's spaces" don't exist. They are unisex. The only single-sex spaces are female-only. Men haven't needed them up until now & they will continue not needing them.

SnowAssMan · 2021-08-20T08:59:56+00:00

Should be trans version of Karen

SnowAssMan · 2021-08-18T18:16:36+00:00

Literally sexist. They need to be called trans-men.

SnowAssMan · 2021-08-18T15:17:27+00:00

Doesn't Judith Butler not identify as a woman, but identifies as a lesbian?

SnowAssMan · 2021-08-18T15:06:06+00:00

you have to change up the order of your words, sometimes misspelling some & replacing letters with numbers, in order to be able to post comments/replies on Youtube.

SnowAssMan · 2021-08-18T15:04:03+00:00

Wow, that was a fascinating read. If you've got the time you should attend some creative writing courses & then turn this into a book, without censoring anything. Someone will want to publish it eventually, once this insanity has blown over. Alternatively, there is the straight to Kindle publishing that Amazon I think offers.

SnowAssMan · 2021-08-08T15:17:18+00:00

YAY! Now they can finally go their own way, instead of obsessing over how much they hate women all day everyday.

SnowAssMan · 2021-08-04T00:00:18+00:00

So the whole point of his existence is to keep female New Zealand athletes from competing in the Olympics...

SnowAssMan · 2021-08-03T12:19:56+00:00

Rate it on Urban Dictionary

SnowAssMan · 2021-07-29T09:50:34+00:00

I think practically all celebrities with a Twitter have been called transphobic by a mob of American teenagers. They probably expect to see it at this point. It probably doesn't phase them enough to snap. That's just what Twitter is now. It's like how you expect to wave flies away when you're on a picnic.

SnowAssMan · 2021-07-29T09:43:16+00:00

love the trolling comments

SnowAssMan · 2021-07-20T16:01:24+00:00

Cherry-picking. For every case of a boy that went back to identifying as a boy, there is a boy who continued identifying as a girl. Plus, going by how someone identifies does not give you an accurate result – look at trans people. They identify as the opposite sex, despite not being the opposite sex biologically or socially. Plus in the cases of intersex boys, who went on to identify as boys, despite being brought up as girls, it wasn't their gender identity that won out in the end, it was their sex. Any sex reassignment surgeries they would have undergone, never actually changed their sex. So if anything, these examples prove you can't change sex.

No one is born with a gender identity, since it's a cultural construct & varies from culture to culture. Gender identity is as much socialised as every other social identity. You're not born with a culture, & gender is just the cultural norms associated with it's respected sex.

Trans people prove that it's socialisation rather than self-identification that determines their gender identity, seeing as their gendered behavioural trends are the majority of the time consistent with their socialisation & in opposition to their self-ID. For instance, trans sex offenders should all be female if their self-ID is to be believed, turns out, they're all male.

Even the guy who coined the term 'gender identity' understood the difference between self-identification & gender identity. He said that trans children understood that they were boys who wanted to be girls, proving that their "core gender identity" is that of a boy.

That being said, gender non-conformity is overrepresented in the homosexual population, as a result homosexuals are overrepresented within the transgender population. But an effeminate gay male doesn't have the same gender identity as a straight woman, so how does he acquire one as soon as he self-identifies as a woman? There is actually no difference between a man who identifies as a femboy & a man who identifies as transgender, other than an ideological difference.

The thing about the nature vs. nurture debate is that both play a role in shaping a person, by contrast, according to trans ideology, self-ID totally overrides both nature & nurture – this is why it can't be taken seriously. At best they are all non-binary, seeing as sex & socialisation play a (huge) role.

Obviously, I'm ignoring the fact that the self-ID cult claims that their self-ID is not invoking free will, but rather the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate. I'm ignoring it because their sex can be measured, unlike their self-ID. It's physically & biologically present. Their sex is the nature part of the debate (which they try to convince can be changed via hormones).

Sure, if they are homosexual then allegedly parts of their brains resemble the opposite sex, but that can be thrown out since not all homosexuals are trans & not all trans people are homosexuals. It's also true that gender dysphoria, like many metal disorders, has a physical manifestation neurologically, but again, not everyone with GD is trans & not all trans people have GD. So there is no physical/biological evidence for being trans, therefore it doesn't belong anywhere near the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate.

SnowAssMan · 2021-07-19T22:14:42+00:00

Just another guy who has half-internalised the lie that men & their penises are integral to women's pleasure, bc "dildos are just penises". I say half-internalised, bc he must know that vibrators are far more popular than dildos, meaning he also understands the implications of this information.

SnowAssMan · 2021-07-14T18:24:43+00:00

There are more differences between men & women than only genitals. They never seem to realise that. Even if someone passes in a photo, they may not in person, if they do in person, they may only do so until they start speaking, or even of they pass almost all the time, certain gestures, a hearty laugh, their veins, limb length, etc. might trigger the uncanny T***** valley in observers. That's off-putting to supers.

SnowAssMan · 2021-07-14T18:15:40+00:00

I guess responding with "quit misgendering me, sexist homophobe" would be too much?

If the suicide rate is what's concerning them (it usually is the only reason they never question the self-id BS) then they should know that the rate of self-reported attempted suicides among LGB youth is also 40%.

SnowAssMan · 2021-07-08T08:02:33+00:00

Are trans people ever more likely to fit the opposite sex stereotype? Usually their gendered behavioural trends totally undermine their self-identification.

It's not nature, since female animals can take on an active role. Anyone who has owned a pet knows that the female ones hump the male ones when they are in heat. It's only during copulation that the female is sexually submissive. Our culture's sex is based on the copulation model, despite most sexual encounters not being for the purpose of reproduction. It's the norm/average or the default, so in most instances the male will be in the active role, while the female is in a passive role. It's culture, not nature & is the opposite of ideal.

Sex can either be selfishly masturbatory, or selflessly masturbatory, or mutual, which is sort of a mixture between the aforementioned two. It can also be male-cantered or female-cantered. The norm is male-centred & selfishly masturbatory.

SnowAssMan · 2021-07-02T10:50:39+00:00

Refreshingly incisive!

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-27T08:26:27+00:00

TLDR: the epic tale of a man & his undying urge to cross-dress – what a hero.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-26T09:41:33+00:00

First you have to acknowledge the greater context: The vast majority of kids & teens with gender dysphoria desist, naturally. Most of those who desist are gay & lesbian. Among the ones who don't desist, a high proportion of them are exclusively same-sex attracted. There has been a recent trend of straight girls transition that never used to exist. The demographic least likely to experience gender dysphoria has quickly become the most likely to experience gender dysphoria.

So instead of the question being: what do we do with people who have gender dysphoria, the real question is why do some people with gender dysphoria fail to desist? Desistance is totally natural & cures dysphoria, while transition doesn't. So why not encourage desistance, instead of transition?

Also, knowing the greater context, if you come across a girl who says she has gender dysphoria & wants to be a boy, what situation would transition actually make sense? If she is a lesbian, you know that she is likely just going through a phase that predominantly affects homosexuals. If she is straight, you know she is likely just a victim of a modern trend; a social contagion. So in neither case would it make sense to medically transition her.

The term 'gender dysphoria' makes no sense. If it's dysphoria (the opposite of euphoria, a type of depression) then it is a mental disorder. If gender is not sex, but the social constructs of masculinity & femininity, then the "disorder" would be limited to clothing, behaviours, pronouns, not their sex. So why treat it as it as if there is something wrong with their perfectly healthy body? Why create a hormonal imbalance where none previously existed? Why amputate healthy body parts? Why not treat a mental disorder like a mental disorder? It clearly should have been called 'sex dysmorphia', or something like that, but even then, the cure to dysmorphia is not cosmetic surgery or chemical castration.

The medical industry is treating "gender dysphoric" children the way they used to treat children with DSDs. Sex reassignment surgery was wrong in the case of intersex people & no less wrong in the case of people with a cross-gender identification.

Social transition often leads to medical transition, & legal transition, so it doesn't stop at pronoun usage, typically. I would advise against it.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-24T20:39:11+00:00

How did you manage that?

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-23T18:42:53+00:00

Did you misplace your dictionary?

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-20T15:13:48+00:00

They should have mentioned that Keira Bell is lesbian. It would have been the perfect opportunity, but they never do. They never bring up sexual orientation, no matter how relevant it is. It's not just relevant, but paramount when it comes to children with cross-gender identification.

So many studies on trans people fail to account for sexual orientation. It's like everyone has forgotten that gay people exist & they are hyper aware of trans identities. Even if they are staring all the hallmarks of homosexuality in the face, they still won't see it. Instead, all they'll see is another "egg".

I hope this article is part of a sea of change. It's too bad almost no gay people work at Tavistock anymore, since they seem to be the only ones who care about this issue of transition as conversion therapy.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-19T21:54:23+00:00

Ugh, just identify as a femboy, then you don't have to have a dysphoria-induced identity crisis every time you trigger your trans uncanny valley.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-19T07:59:19+00:00

If they experience misogyny then they don't experience transphobia. You can't have it both ways. Maybe these trans people should start talking about misogyny then, instead of word "transphobia" comprising 90% of their rhetoric.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-18T11:29:20+00:00

I've certainly taken to typing out much shorter comments/replies. Everyone on Youtube has been complaining about this problem. Their spam filter is clearly too sensitive. It might be by design though. I doubt old media's YT presence is affected by this at all. The more comments there are, the better the video performs in visibility, so if you're not part of a big company, but are getting "too many comments" "too quickly" then you end up being competition for the big 5, which they can't allow.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-18T11:21:52+00:00

What does 5% vs 50/50 mean though? If you can fall in love with both men & women then surely you're 100% bisexual. If you can only fall for one, you're 0% bisexual. Where is there even a possibility of a spectrum there? I suspect that straight people just think if they watched gay porn once & didn't hate it, all of a sudden they don't consider themselves fully straight – if that was the metric, no one would be fully gay either. The difference is gay people don't think of themselves as a little straight if they were to ever watch straight porn for instance. The porn example is just an example, there are probably equivalent examples of these so-called breaches in heterosexuality that supposedly justify a bisexual self-categorisation.

It's only homophobic nowadays, when both partners are more than likely homosexuals. In the olden days lesbian-lesbian relationships would have been unlikely & the further back you go the less likely it would have been possible. Populations were just too small.

The fact that many societies only treat effeminate gay men & masculine lesbians as gay & not the "straight acting" ones, seems to confirm this origin of "third gender" as homosexual in origin. There are societies that label all gay people a "third gender", but then differentiate between the gender conforming & cross-gender conforming ones.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T23:04:39+00:00

They ought to be too squeamish to even considerate it though. It's like if you're a voyeur, you wouldn't be spying on your own family members, unless you were additionally into incest.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T22:58:45+00:00

I think those terms proliferate the idea that sex is mutable. I think this is a harmful idea for both sides. For instance, if someone is considering medical transition they shouldn't be under the impression that the changes they undergo will be tantamount to a change in sex, otherwise they're bound to be disappointed with the results, to some degree at least.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T22:47:09+00:00

Absolutely! I believe that they are straight, despite technically being in a same-sex relationship. Even eye-tracking studies seem to confirm that Samoan men open to dating fa'afafine are not even bisexual (just not as "straight" as men unwilling to, apparently).

I recently saw an old British documentary about lesbians (uploaded by BabyRadFemTV) & according to it, 'lesbian' used to be defined as the type of woman who would dress & act like a man & pursue romantic relationships with women. The women they had relationships with were not regarded as lesbians at that time.

I feel like this old view is more accurate than the modern one. Nowadays, we have to all accept that the partner of a lesbian is always another lesbian (or bisexual) & that a heterosexual women can never love another woman. This is why political lesbianism has got such a bad wrap nowadays & seemingly every modern radfem rejects it as being homophobic (even though Sheila Jeffreys is a political lesbian in a very successful long term relationship). Then they wonder why every straight woman identifies as bi – it's bc they can't just be straight anymore if they are open to relationships with women. The modern political lesbian has to identify as febfem in order to avoid the wrath of lesbians & their allies.

Then again, I've heard people say that you can identify as bi even if you're not 50/50 bi – whatever the f*ck that means. I mean, if you're gay but like "5% straight", or whatever, wouldn't you still think of yourself gay? Don't know why a straight person who is "5% gay" is automatically bi. I think if a label were absolutely necessary then "heteroflexible"? But maybe it becomes less about semantics & more about preference as far as these labels are concerned.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T22:06:01+00:00

This has been my experience too. I've even taken to misspelling words (replacing L's with capital I's, for instance) in order for it to finally post. Don't try to do paragraphs or add links either. YT comments are absolutely f*cked. Another thing it sometimes does is add the comment, but it's not visible unless you 'sort by new'.

When I was evaluating YT, I was only considering uploads.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T15:26:11+00:00

because their society couldn’t cope with their homosexuality

It's not that they couldn't cope necessarily, just that in those days you'd very likely be "the only gay in the village", so a gay person would have had little choice left to them. Gay people were probably very likely partnered with straight people for the majority of history. It's only in recent times that gay people can find each other to date. Nowadays it's taboo to suggest that straight people got into relationships with gay people, bc everyone has decided that heterosexuality "isn't a choice", bc otherwise the gay rights movement will collapse or something. Everyone's got a sacred calf, it seems, inhibiting their common sense.

In fact, modern gay people who completely lack a cross-gender identification are a new type of gay person, while the transgendered type of gay person would be the "original" type. Which firmly secures that neither is lesser, not that that was the goal, but it just seems to be where the evidence points.

that the homosexual identity only existed because society couldn’t cope with their transgendered identity

The only way for that to be true though is if homosexuality just didn't exist in their culture. You've also got to remember the context of desistance – how most underage people who identify as trans desist & most of those end up being gay, not the other way around. Cross-gender identification seems to be a part in being gay, a very useful part in the olden days.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T09:31:08+00:00

I have cited too many sources for it to be "bullshit". You're embarrassing yourself by being disingenuous. Sociology is not "my bullshit". It's just science that you irrationally disagree with for reasons unknown. If you were expecting me to conclude that sociology is bullshit simply by you engaging with me the way you have, then yes, clearly you were mistaken.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T09:31:06+00:00

You refuse to admit that upbringing influences identity. You never once addressed the other social identities I mentioned. You can pretend you answered it but you never did. Here is the unanswered question yet again: do all the social identities not exist, or only gender identity?

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T09:16:38+00:00

only if different means the same.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T09:13:41+00:00

But homosexuality is defined by same-sex attraction. If a people-group label their same-sex attracted population "two spirit" for instance, it's pretty safe to say that they are homosexuals, especially when not calling them homosexuals means you're saying homosexuals don't exist in their culture. So there is really no way around them being homosexuals, trouble is, it means trans people are at best a type of homosexual, a throwback to an earlier time when populations were smaller & the only way a homosexual person could marry a member if the same sex would be to take on the role of the opposite sex.

The problem is this insistence that the modern Western view of transgender exists (as not being a type of homosexual, but a type of DSD, I guess). In that case, one of the two has got to be erased in order for the other to exist. If transexual is a type of homosexual, then neither is erased by the "revelation" that two-spirit people are exclusively same-sex attracted.

I think we need to just keep in mind that all these so-called trans people are consistently exclusively same-sex attracted. Homosexuals & trans people have one thing in common: their sexual orientation. Since "homosexual" is in reference to sexual orientation then transgender people are a type of homosexual.

The biggest problem of all are the "transbians", who are made totally illegitimate by all of this, reduced to a paraphilia. And they are the social majority, as well as a physical majority within the trans population.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T08:08:20+00:00

"Dinosaur" is from the late 19th century too. Their remains were unearthed by cultures all around the world before then though. Homosexuality is actually measurable (eye-tracking, for instance). It's not an invention.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T08:02:24+00:00

Wow, you listed a single non-Western non-20th century gay person... how does that address my question though? Did this individual exist in a culture that recognised a "third gender"?

For instance, if the "two spirit" people within Native American nations are not gay but trans, then where are the gay people within those nations?

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T06:44:15+00:00

What's the difference between being male & being "born male"? What's the difference between male & "natal male"?

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-17T06:40:13+00:00

"Masculine & feminine energies" – masculine & feminine. 1, 2. That's 2 genders...

They stop listening after they hear "banning trans...". Banning the male sex from girl's sports.

None of them are sober.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-16T01:05:06+00:00

That Wiki-link is just a list of famous LGB individuals 99.9% of whom are all from the 20th century Western world, while the 0.1% are still from the Western world. How does that address my question, when my question was about people outside the modern-day West?

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-15T17:55:18+00:00

That Wiki-link is just a list of famous LGB individuals 99.9% of whom are all from the 20th century Western world. How does that address my question, when my question was about people outside the modern-day West?

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-15T11:07:54+00:00

I think this implies that not all of them are aware.

Well, some of them are children, so it'd probably be those ones. I don't believe that any of the adults didn't know, while the scientists conducting the study did, despite what that sentence's structure seems to be suggesting. I guess that is an assumption on my part. I don't remember the relevancy of this anymore. Whether they know the truth or not doesn't really undermine the existence of gender identity.

Why just one of them have a "female gender identity"

According to Stoller, transgender males have a male gender identity bc they recognise that they are male but want to be female.

because you're set in thinking socialization being the only thing that matters

The gendered part of a person's socialisation has an effect on their identity, that effect; that resulting part of their identity, is called gender identity. I fail to see the controversy. There are parts of our identity that we share with others. They are social identities. One of those social identities is gender identity. Where is the justification to exclude gender identity from the social identities?

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-15T11:07:50+00:00

Do you have a class-identity, or national identity? Or does no one have either of those things, since no one can live up to being a "walking stereotype"? Does social identities not exist only because walking stereotypes don't exist? So just bc it's not your entire identity it can't possibly be a part of your identity?

So your socialisation wasn't gendered? So when your parents recognised your sex & treated you accordingly, none of that actually happened? Either they were blind to your sex or they come from Mars where girls & boys aren't treated differently?

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-14T21:25:25+00:00

Ew, why is it always relatives' underwear? Isn't that incestuous to boot? I guess paraphilias beget more paraphilias.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-14T21:16:49+00:00

lol that's so ironic that the initialism for "female to male" can also mean "first time mom". It seems their ideology isn't so widespread. Maybe the wider it gets spread the bigger the resulting backlash will be. From now on FTM means 'first time mom' to me lol. It needs an Urban Dictionary entry.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-13T07:59:08+00:00

ikr, there is no transgender history. But history of a group is very important in the US, I've noticed. It's interesting to see when they tell the truth & when they revise history completely. Like how Italian Americans proliferated the lie that an Italian discovered America, in order to solidify their legitimacy as American citizens. Or like how white Americans think they were all "pilgrims" escaping "religious persecution", instead of as puritans who had been exiled to the colonies. The make sure to emphasise slavery as being African Americans' only heritage though. It influences everyone's view of a group & the group's view of itself.

If people knew that there is no trans history (just gay history that has been appropriated by trans hysteria) then they'd be more sceptical. Scepticism is deadly to transgender ideology.

SnowAssMan · 2021-06-12T09:20:10+00:00

I saw nowhere in the paper where it says that all of them were told the truth

Nowhere does it say they weren't told it. Studies don't usually go out of their way to remind the reader that everything was done consensually. As far as I know it's illegal to not disclose the purpose of a study to its participants. So it stands to reason that they knew, unless otherwise stated.

they were sometime lied to

Duh

then he should have a "female gender identity" according to you

According to you, you mean. A child's gender identity has already formed before they can start claiming to be transgender.

How does the existence of sex & its consequences undermine the fact that gendered socialisation leads to gendered identity?

SnowAssMan