This is what kind of unstable jackass troons out

Vari4 · 2022-04-09T23:54:51+00:00

TransWomenHateWomen

Vari4 · 2021-11-10T04:58:41+00:00

Because age and weight would be there without humans (as would sexual reproduction); but species, race and sex are a layer we use to describe the world. Species isn't there to be discovered, we impose it to describe how animals cluster.

I'd start by pointing out that concepts of sex and species being part of the natural world play a key role in our explanations of which animals can and cannot reproduce with each other.

Without sex and species being part of the natural we would have no explanation for why organisms of the same sex cannot reproduce and why organisms of different species cannot reproduce (with some interesting exceptions regarding things like mules and ring species).

If this cretin responds by arguing that you cannot tell someone's sex just by looking then you should respond by asking if they wanna make a bet.

Vari4 · 2021-11-07T21:48:25+00:00

They have different epistemic goals to us.

I will believe something iff and only iff it helps me better predict and explain observation.

They will believe something iff they think it makes them kinder.

"belief" means something different for them and us.

You can see this play out quite clearly in trans-philosophy and transactivism. Philosophy bros like contrapoints and PhilosophyTube will blatantly admit that they can't win the metaphysical debate about what gender is and would prefer to focus on issues regarding healthcare and respect.

Vari4 · 2021-08-10T02:27:44+00:00

I've had admins remove my comments and explain that this is due to sitewide rule.

This was a few months back and on an edgy subreddit so might not reflect what reddits policies are.

Do you have evidence/source for this?

Vari4 · 2021-08-08T09:36:47+00:00

It's not up to you to dictate to me who I can dictate things too!

It's not for you to decide what narrative I push about which narratives others push!

You don't have the authority to tell me that I'm not the boss of you!

Vari4 · 2021-08-03T06:00:23+00:00

No. We need to stop saying this.

He didn't loose on purpose.

He was absolutely able to lift the weight. He just failed to do this with the correct technique and was therefore disqualified.

The narrative we need to push isn't that he lost on purpose.

The narative we need to push is that he (1) demonstrated very clearly that he has a strength advantage and, (2) demonstrated that he lacks the appropriate skill and talent to compete at this level.

What let him down wasn't his extra muscle and strength.

What let him down was that he was a lazy piece of shit that couldn't get the technique right.

Vari4 · 2021-06-27T08:14:21+00:00

Philosopher here: I went through this the other day. Couple of observations.

Firstly it's a paid journal - most of the stuff is behind a paywall (presumably none of the cash goes to the academics who write this drivel though)

Second, some of the article titles are fucking hillarious. "De/Colonizing Hijra" by Dr. Claire Pamment (A white person and professor of Theatre :p ) or "Challenging Queer Metronormativity: The Case of Southern Trans Masculinity" by Z. Zane McNeill a self described enbie, neurodiverse, animal activist and scholar.

Third, went through the free article "Decolonizing Trans/Gender Studies?: Teaching Gender, Race, and Sexuality in Times of the Rise of the Global Right" by Alyosxa Tudor Lecturer in Gender Studies at University of London (who - based on the jawline - I'm pretty sure is just a bloke). It made a couple of claims about us. He claims that he will "analyze attacks on trans people and gender studies by transphobic feminists who call themselves “gender-critical” or “radical feminist” and show how transphobic feminists are aligned with masculinist anti-gender and far-right anti-immigration rhetoric. "

Needless to say - he doesn't really do this. The closest he comes to doing this is arguing that Gender Critical feminists have shared platforms with right wing people. Which isn't really news to anyone. Certain parts of the radical feminist movement have been making alliances of convivence with conservatives for decades. They never tried to hide this. It's a tactic that is controversial in radical feminist communities and is something that is only practiced by a few. What "Alyosxa" fails to recognise is that (1) he doesn't have an original thought here, and (2) that agreeing to make a single issue coalition with right wing people doesn't make you right wing. If you really were right wing you wouldn't need to make these sorts of coalitions.

This is the sort of shallow drivel that passes for a professor at a major university. It's a disgrace to the university, to academia, and to the philosophical community.

Vari4 · 2021-05-18T23:02:12+00:00

I understand you're not the user that i was replying to.

But are you agreeing with them that it is true to say that "a man who puts on a dress and some lippy has transitioned gender whilst still being a man and an adult male"?

TBH I don't think it's accurate to call people like Bradly Manning or Bruce Jenner "transgender" because they haven't transitioned anything. They were men, they are men - they have transitioned nothing. At most they are transvestities.

Vari4 · 2021-05-17T12:33:34+00:00

Reply #2

Apologies for writing second reply (i know - poor internet manners!) but as i walked away from the PC I remembered just why I gave up on the idea of reducing the concept of "man" or "woman" to "male" and "female".

I don't think this reduction conforms with our intuitions about what makes someone a man.

We can demonstrate this with thought experements.

If you were to take the shittiest of shitty men - like Harvey Weinstein or Brett Kavanaghu and through some process change their body to a body that was physically indistinguishable form a natural born female - even down to the cellular level - do you think that these people would have become women?

I really don't think there is anything that can be done to a man that could possibly change him into a woman - anymore than changing Weinstein's body could turn him into someone who isn't a rapist.

When i've talked with the biologically reductionist GC people I've never been able to get a straight answer from them about these sorts of hypothetically. They typically try and dodge them by claiming that "science hasn't advanced this far" or that "it's not ethical to give these people uterus transplants" or whatever - but they seem to cut to the heart of the matter and explain if such a hypothetical person would be a man or a woman.

Even if you don't think it's physically possible for such a thing to happen it's still important to deal with the hypothetical because it's only through this sort of conceptual analysis that you can understand what your concepts really refer to!

Anyway that's my 2c

Vari4 · 2021-05-17T11:54:48+00:00

The examples you give are sex statements, not gender statements. The words man and woman designate sex, not gender. Adult human male. Adult human female.

I think this shouldn't be taken for granted. It's perfectly reasonable to say that the terms "male" and "female" refer to sex and "man" and "woman" refer to gender. To be gender critical (or at least trans-critical) one just needs to assert that there is some type of close connection between the two.

I think you make a key mistake when you try to classify all gender critical people as believing in a common conception of gender or sex. I see us as more like athiests - we just don't believe in the possibility of transition.

For context - my own view is that

(1) there are inequalities between men and women - these inequalities are statistically significant and politically significant. They demand explanation. (2) Not all inequalities between men and women can be explained with references to mere biology alone (3) the differences between men and women that cannot be explained with reference to mere biology are explained by the fact that we live in a culture where male and female babies are separated at birth, treated differently, trained to behave differently, and trained to treat each other differently. It is this system that genders us. To be a woman is to be born female under patriarchy. (4) Without this system many the majority of the most obvious and important inequalities between men and women wouldn't exist. It may even be comprehensible to say that in such a world there wouldn't really be 'men' and 'women' anymore in a similar way in which in a world without law schools there wouldn't be any lawyers.

You might see this as if we fundamentally disagree - however i don't think we're that far apart. You reduce the concept 'gender' to a set of culturally constructed behaviours. I reduce it to the system that causes people to behave in these ways.

The key difference between us is that

(i) I tie the concepts of 'man' and 'woman' to gender whereas you tie them to sex. (ii) it appears that you believe it's possible for people to transition gender without changing sex. For example; if a man starts behaving in a feminine way then he may still be a man but you shouldn't have trouble saying that this man has transitioned gender! (question: is this correct? it appears to be what you are saying when you conceptualise gender as being unrelated to "man" and related to "sex stereotypes" - which are presumably stereotypes of behaviour.)

Personally, I don't think it's possible for a man to transition gender no matter what he does - even if he acts feminine or cuts off his balls he will have still been raised in a society that would have trained him to behave in a certain way which disposes him to treat women like shit and that's what makes him a man.

Vari4 · 2021-05-17T07:58:45+00:00

IMHO the best way to categorise gender theories is similar to the way that we can categorise metaethical theories.

The semantic distinction: Gender cognitivism vs. Gender noncognitivism: If you think that gender statements (e.g. "I am a man" "joan is a woman" and so on) express beliefs that can be true or false then you're a gender cognitivist (99% of people would agree with this. If you think that gender statements don't express beliefs at all and nor can they be true or false because they express feelings instead then you're a gender noncognitivist. I don't see this as a particularly appealing view to anyone except that most rabid post-modern transtrenderists. Accepting gender non-cognitivism would more or less invalidate everyone's identity.
The metaphysical question: Gender realism vs antirealism. Gender realists are people who think that there are at least some true first order claims about gender - that at least some people really are men or women. Gender anti-realists are those who think that there are no true claims about gender. They are either non-cognitivists who don't think gender claims assert anything or they are cognitivists who just think all gender claims are false because there's no such thing as gender.

Note: 'realism' here just means "that some statements about gender are true" - it doesn't say anything about what makes them true.

For those of us who are cognitive realists (which will pretty much be everyone - including most transactivists and GC people) there are further distinctions to be made.

Naturalism vs. non-naturalism and reductionism vs non-reductionism.

The natural/non-natural distinction is a common metaethical distinction with a few popular interpretations. Typically either (i) natural properties or facts are those that have causal or explanatory power or (ii) natural facts are those facts that can only be investigated through empirical methods.

Personally I think at this point the important distinction becomes about what sorts of things we are saying that gender claims refer to.

here we have a lot of options. Claims about gender could refer to

biological things like chromosomes, genitals, morphological features, a piece of neurology.
phenomenological things like; feelings, beliefs, desires, representations of one's sexed body, the feeling of being identified within a certain group.
sociologically constructed things; like belong to a social caste (which can include the consequences of this belonging like being disposed to be treated a certain way or being disposed to treat others a certain way).
something else (i.e. acting in a certain way)

tldr.

With very few exceptions we are all gender realists because we all make truth claims about gender.
the important distinctions are between different ways we reduce gender.

I dunno if i'm making sense anymore - but imma post this anyway.

Vari4 · 2021-05-16T00:11:00+00:00

Lol I logged into my reddit account to give some of those subs some shit.

Only to find that my account had several warnings from reddit mods for "promoting hate"

How is it hate to say that a man isn't a woman just because he says he is but not hate to say that a white person isn't black just because she says she is?

Reddit is trash.

We should mis-gender everyone on that platform :P

Vari4 · 2021-04-26T06:39:37+00:00

It's called autogynephilic Steven. You have a paraphilia Steven.

Vari4 · 2021-03-24T00:26:26+00:00

I found a lot of useful information on his wikipedia "talk" page (a page used by wikipedia editors to talk about the article they are editing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aimee_Challenor#Unprovoked_bans_on_Reddit

This lead to his own user page on wikipedia (where he is an editor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AimeeSunflower

Vari4 · 2021-01-02T05:52:45+00:00

My copy-pasta response:

People look at this study and think that because David was raised as a girl but still knew he was a boy there must therefore be some innate sense of gender hardwirded into us.

However, what people fail to consider is that David spend his entire childhood having people (including his parents, siblings, and doctors) poke and prod him about his gender and genitals.

Contrary to popular belief David was not raised as a girl. David was systematically sexually abused by a bunch of adults obsessed with his gender.

Now children are dumb. But they aren't that dumb. Any kid with a few neurons to rub togeather would understand that these adults were unto something and hiding information about him from him.

David found out that he was a boy by sneaking a peak at his medical records when the doctor was out of the room.

I don't think this case shows that David had an innate sense of boyness. I think it shows that he was rightly paranoid and suspicious of whatever the doctors were up to with their regiment of medications, injections, genital inspections, and simulated rape.

If this had happened to me i would have probably come to a similar conclusion.

Vari4 · 2020-12-01T05:05:06+00:00

I watched the first episode. Saw him in there. I legit thought that they casted a TiM deliberately so that he could play a creepy nun (out of all the characters in the orphanage the TiM was the most annoying and was most likely to be a pedo).

Was pretty confused when this storyline didn't go anywhere.

Vari4 · 2020-09-09T23:23:22+00:00

Question: Is someone really your friend if you feel like you have to walk on eggshells around them and hide who you are from them. IMHO at best someone like this isn't friends with you - they're friends with who they think you are.

Also for anyone in this situation remember that the women who are raped by men have the high moral ground here. Don't let them take it without a fight.

Vari4 · 2020-09-09T04:47:21+00:00

Could the publication bias be due to the academic rigor of those findings? I expect the truth to be more published.

By definition, a publication bias is not the result of academic rigor or truth. Bias is something that works against accuracy of findings.

Do you think arguing that men and women are the same [biologically] does women any favours?

The truth of the matter is indifferent to weather or not it does us any favours. Facts about the root cause of difference between men and women (biological properties or social circumstances) are indifferent to our political desires. Believing things because they do us favours merely causes us to act on false information, endorse ineffective policies, and wate our time and effort.

However to answer your questions, yes it does.

Arguing that the differences between men and women are inherent to men and women (grounded in biology) is often used to justify gender inequality and discrimination. Part of the reason women are underrepresented in STEM is that many men and women believe that women are less capable of thriving in this sector.

Arguing that the differences between men and women are caused by environmental differences causes us to be conscious of these differences and address them.

Or are we completely different in every part of our bodies, except for our brains, which are identical?

Are the differences between male and female kidneys and earlobes so dramatic? Sure, there are differences in every cell (XX - XY) But these differences often don't play a role in the best explanation of how these parts of us function. The same may be true of the brain - sure every neuron has an XX or XY chromosome in it - there may even be a few robust differences that exist between the male and female brains. However the significance these differences have is entirely up for grabs.

I don't think there is any good reason to believe that men are disposed to treat women poorly because if you take a look inside one of their neurons you'll see something that looks like a 'XY' if you squint at it.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

No apologies necessary. You don't have to believe anything that you don't desire to.

Men and women do act differently. They have different interests and excel at different subjects. What is the reason for that? There is ample evidence that all our differences have their basis in our biology.

Actual behavioural biologists do not believe that all human behaviour and differences between groups are determined by biology. (stanford uni has a very good course on human behavioural biology availiable for free on youtube if you want to do more research on this topic)

The radical feminist philosophy argues that we can explain many of these differences (especially the differences we are most interested in politically) by referring to the fact that we live in a culture where male babies and female babies are separated at birth, treated differently, trained to behave differently, and trained to treat each other differently.

Even though it may never be possible to precisely measure the impact that sociology has on us compared to the impact biology has on us - we will still have good reasons to believe that the way we are treated from birth will have significant impacts on our interests and aptitudes.

More interestingly, I think this plays a significant role in the explanation of (i) why men treat women so poorly, and (ii) why it is not possible for a man to become a woman even if he were to change his biology in such a way as to be indistinguishable from a real woman.

If only we could stop spreading this ridiculous notion: "There's no difference! Men and women are the same!"

Men and women are not the same. If they were the same there would be no concept of ‘man’ or ‘woman’. It is the cause of these differences that are disputed.

Women are not born liking the colour pink.

Vari4 · 2020-09-09T03:02:15+00:00

Sorry it's been a while since i read it. Can't quote it at any length.

IIRC one of the main arguments she made was that there was a pretty substantial publication bias in favour of articles that found neuro sex differences vs articles that did not.

I remember she has done some fairly good presentations of her work.

Found this one: not sure if it covers this topic - https://youtu.be/ZgE8p6n9Z7o?t=746

Vari4 · 2020-09-09T02:51:38+00:00

It's surreal as fuck. I don't even know why I'm posting this here, I tried to find this sub on reddit but it isn't there.

Reddit banned Gender Critical and all of our sister sub's about a month ago. The social media giants and legal authorities are making it increasingly clear that they will no longer tollerate woman's skepticism of men's fantasies of gender.

I don't know where else to post it without people saying I'm a TERF for daring to suggest someone might be pretending to be trans with the intentions to sexually assault women. What am I even supposed to do in this situation?

I would suggest telling those you care about - including your old aquaintance something along the lines of

This man raped me so many times I lost count and beat me so bad that I ended up in the hospital with a broken rib, a kidney contusion and fractured skull. I'm saying this to you because I want you to understand that just because he chooses to wear a skirt and identifies as a womandoesn't change the fact that he is a man who is disposed to beat women. I really don't think it is wise for you or anyone else to let this man to gaslight you to gain access to your sympathies.

I know it's difficult to speak out about this stuff in the current political climate. But the more way stay silent the harder it will be for women like you to speak out about it. We need to reach out to each other and back each other so that our skepticism can become normalised.

Vari4 · 2020-09-09T02:35:55+00:00

Fuck wikipedia can be biased sometimes:

Transgender studies on brain anatomy

Early postmortem studies of transsexual neurological differentiation was focused on the hypothalamic and amygdala regions of the brain. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), some trans women were found to have female-typical putamina that were larger in size than those of cisgender males.[11] Some trans women have also shown a female-typical central part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) and interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus number 3 (INAH-3), looking at the number of neurons found within each.[12]

Notice how they say "some TiM's have the lady brain" - sounds just as true to say some don't.

Anyway; for those interested Cordelia Fine's book Testosterone Rex does a really good job challanging the scientific orthodoxy on neurological sex differences between male and female brains.

Vari4 · 2020-08-24T05:35:00+00:00

Scotland has a lot of balls.

Vari4 · 2020-08-20T00:49:38+00:00

Respect is at the core of a healthy relationship. Your partner is someone who is supposed to respect you and you are supposed to respect them.

Someone cannot coherently claim to respect you whilst also saying that they are embarrassed to have you around.

By that same token i don't think we can coherently claim to respect someone whilst saying that their most cherished beliefs are not just obviously false - but also a symptom of wilful irrationality.

Love might draw you to someone - but without respect love isn't going to be enough.

I ended up breaking up with my partner a few years back because i was GC and although she privately agreed with a lot of my views she didn't want to be associated with them publicly.

Vari4 · 2020-08-08T12:17:25+00:00

I could really use a downvote button right about now

Vari4

TransWomenHateWomen