QT: Do you regret any part of your medical transition? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

I got rid of something I didn't want. Now that it's gone, I am happier than I was to have it. So for me, I was solving a very basic problem with a very basic solution.

The issue is that amputating body parts that are perceived as shameful or wrong etc. in a society constantly sending women these messages shouldn't be the solution, even if it seems "simple". It's also incredibly simple for people with body integrity dysphoria to amputate their limbs, or for gay people to stay in the closet. A solution being simple isn't the best for that reason, especially in lieu of mental illness or trauma.

Whether or not someone "cares" if I "cry over it" is irrelevant; that wouldn't have solved the problem one way or another.

That's very debatable. I do believe that if women were not hated and treated as subhuman to such a degree, that they wouldn't have to reach for these surgeries, medication and various misogynistic ideologies that promise male approval in order to fix what isn't actually the problem. I can't fault women for getting these procedures done and falling for these ideologies because being seen as a woman sucks and everyone knows it. But women seeing themselves as the problem for being female and ironically being convinced they're unique in the world for it, never changed anything. Amputating perfectly healthy and normal body parts, as well as other unnecessary procedures that come in the same package, should never be seen as a "simple solution".

??? I... don't think any of this. I assume women are a diverse population who probably each have a unique relationship with their own bodies. I don't speak for any of them.

This seems like another trend in the trans (rights) community: pretending that all those women are sooo impossible to understand and that surely said misunderstanding must be validation of one's non-womanness. I have lost count of the women who say they don't need feminism or the women who are not like other girls, and despite their indignation, I have not once been convinced by people shoving their heads in the sand regarding their physical reality because they don't want to hear it.

Again, no one in the universe asked any woman, regardless of which pronouns she uses or which surgeries she's gotten, how she feels about being female. The simple reality is that these were the cards we have been dealt. The fact that women deal differently with the realities of being female, and that surgeries and drugs exist, doesn't actually change the fact that they are female.

I didn't remove my breasts based on how women feel about breasts, I had my breasts removed based on how I felt about my own breasts.

Except you would literally have nothing to remove if you weren't in the same basket as all women who feel a certain way about their female bodies because they are female. So trying to pretend this is something that has nothing to do with you is like me trying to pretend that I don't understand English or that I don't have two feet. Remember, no-one cared how you felt about being female, nor did they care how I felt about it, nor that woman, nor that one. You didn't get VIP access to a character creator any more than any of us did. I'm not trying to be cruel here, but trans people have to understand that their wishes don't actually change reality and that self hatred or cosmetic surgeries aren't something unique to them. Your experience of hating being female and hating how your female body is treated is one that can only ever be experienced by a female person. The choice of modifying or amputating parts of one's female body via surgeries and medical procedures for whatever reason is one that can only be made by a female person. And pretending like all the other women wished their breasts into existence because they're sooo foreign and complicated isn't going to change that.

But I'm still happier to have had my breasts removed.

I honestly don't intend to debate whether or not you're happy. I have met people who were made happy by all sorts of things. Hell, cults and drugs have such power over people precisely because they make them happy and provide a simple alternative to a shitty reality. Men are happy having women as bang maids, and guess how much that changes my ideas on feminism? The simple fact is, I don't want an "easy fix" in the form of amputations, surgeries and a lifetime of an artificially induced hormonal imbalance just so one could avoid being treated like an object for having the gall to be born female. Again, I don't fault women for doing it, and it certainly seems better than enduring the "gender validating" shit that women are supposed to be made euphoric by, but I do fault the misogynistic ideologies and shoving one's head in the sand because we're supposed to already have "simple solutions". My issue isn't really with how happy you as one single individual are, my concern is with how the views I keep seeing trans people/supporters espouse keep feeding into this idea that women have an easy fix to misogyny through surgeries, medication or just plain ol' pretending and denial.

It's probably hyperbolic to call it 'euphoria'

But the fact that you can feel shame over your female body and euphoria over superficial modifications to your female biology is an experience only a woman can have. That's kind of the point. No amount of claiming that being female is something that doesn't concern you or that you supposedly don't understand erases reality because at the end of the day, none of us were asked about how we feel any more than you were.

QT: Do you regret any part of your medical transition? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

there is no time I wanted my breasts.

This is such a strange argument to me and I see it a lot. I never wanted white skin, or blue eyes or those back dimples. But I have them. No-one ever asked me if I wanted these things, no-one ever cared how I felt about them, no one cares if I cry over them or jump from joy. I wasn't given a list before being born to check which traits I want. I couldn't "want" to be taller, hairier, stronger. These are simply the cards I have been dealt and there hasn't been one moment ever where my wishes or feelings factored into them.

I notice that a lot of people on the trans (rights) side seem to think women love being women, that they get euphoric from having breasts, they get overjoyed from being female. From a patriarchal and liberal feminist standpoint, this makes sense: there is a ridiculous amount of focus in society placed on sexualising women's bodies through the male gaze and for male satisfaction, and even "progressive" movements selling this as female empowerment and liberation. The image is painted of a sexy, very confident half-naked woman who's in control of her (male-gaze pandering) sexuality.

In practice however, anxieties over one's body and a lifetime of endured objectification, self-hatred and sexual dysfunction are very common in women. In my experience, they're so common that I no longer believe any woman who tries to paint a picture of a woman overjoyed by these things. It's like asking me to believe that your average Muslim woman really did choose her subhuman god-given role. No matter how euphoric it makes her, I'm not going to buy it when we know from history how genuine this contentment with one's oppression is.

QT: Do you regret any part of your medical transition? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

It seems like there's a cure and even ways to prevent gender dysphoria or transsexualism from ever happening to begin with

One thing that often gets overlooked about this (because both GC and QT know they have to ultimately appeal to misogynistic men if they're to keep their numbers up) is the role that society plays in all this. You can tell a person to just be themselves all you want, but when society treats them like crap for it, ofc they're going to pick the value system that doesn't do that over a lifetime of being told they're wrong (also why women defend femininity despite how obviously damaging it is to their well-being. Well, that and a lifetime of mass 24/7 brainwashing to put men's needs first). Difficulties with gender are going to exist in different intensities as long as we place so much value into genderist beliefs, so the only real way to fix it is to take on genderism as a concept straight on for its anti-humanist ideals. This however, would get GC's conservative women and especially their boyfriends pissy, and meanwhile QT has already legitimised gender as something so crucial to one's identity that it can literally make people suicide if not respected and played to. As such, genderism always has to be presented as a "preference" regardless of how many mental issues and tragedies it keeps causing, a preference that a minority of weirdos simply didn't get up to speed with, but one that is great and peachy otherwise and how the world should be. Trans people are an extreme case, but there have always existed many more people who are unhappy with these expectations, and far more who are unhappy, but don't realise why or don't dare to put a finger on it because it's easier and more sensible according to the existing value system to redirect all the blame and related trauma onto women.

GC likes to pretend there's some plague of "genderism" that's only started with the trans rights movement. In reality most people are fully on board with genderism, which is why we live in a patriarchal society, it's just the rigidity of it that people disagree on. Conservatives force people into cages so the proper world order can be preserved. Liberals want to maintain the cages because they help men feel superior and/or hornier, but in view of the trauma and anxiety said cages cause, liberals kindly allow people to choose which cage looks the shiniest according to everyone's super special unique snowflake preferences. Both believe in the natural patriarchal order and both put copious amounts of effort into prettying it up so people who derive their worth from it can sleep better at night.

There is a lot of talk about girls being pressured into surgeries, feeling ashamed of their physiology and pretending they're not female for respectability, but these things were a part of girls' experiences long before the trans craze took over, because all of them originate from the same pressures. Girls who openly hate being seen through pornified and subhuman lens that they are inevitably viewed through are still going to feel these feelings. Girls who claim they like being seen through these lens are still going to be saddled with mountains of anxieties, trauma and lower standards compared to men directly resulting from these expectations. And the ones who have internalised self-hatred to the point of getting amputations and maintaining a lifetime of an artificially induced hormonal imbalance are not suddenly going to be cured, just as any other girl wasn't. You can't end trauma and mental illnesses resulting from genderism without tackling genderism, not just as a "preference" or a special cage for special people, but as a toxic, damaging system it is.

QT: Can men compete in women's sports if they meet all the same requirements of transwomen? by FlanJam in GCdebatesQT

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

Again, plenty of femboys do exactly that. That's simply a fact.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I have on several occasions explained why I think women should maintain sex based spaces.

You said women, as a whole, do not have to explain to anyone why they need sex-based spaces. This is NOT saying that women, as a whole, have already explained their need for sex-based spaces and that you don't feel like going over them again, and you got annoyed at the mere demand that they be expected to do so.

I absolutely do not have to explain to trans people, men in general, or You why I think sex based spaces are important. Who the fuck are you, or a trans person or any random dude, to demand that?

Excuse me, your majesty, for committing such a grave insult of expecting statements that you or women in general make to be backed by any semblance of logic and rational thinking. I did not realise in my ignorance that women have transcended such materialistic requirements and have turned into masters of the universe whose mere utterance of a word renders it law.

The explanation is that it’s a sex based space. That’s why.

And we have already established why this "explanation" is not an explanation. See previous comments.

this is just you doing that weird thing you sometimes do and it’s fucking wack, you never have anything to add when you do this

Gee, it's sooo wack to take issue with fallacious comments, what an crazy thing to do!

I have explained why your argument relies on fallacies and why it's bad at best and dangerous at worst. How much more in-depth do you want me to go on that? What part of that are you having trouble understanding? Every time I made my comments, I stood by them, so I have no trouble expanding on the things I say because I actually think them through.

I think you just make yourself look like an ass.

lol you should know by now that appeals to niceness on radical feminists don't exactly work.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

We all know why sex-segreggates spaces are necessary

Except no, a lot of people don't know why sex-segregated spaces are necessary, hence why they are constantly being debated in the first place.

There is no need to misconstruct what u/loveSloane said just because she didn't state the reasons for them for the millionth time.

No one asked her to? Her argument was that women don't have to explain anything because we have appeals to tradition/status quo/majority opinion etc. Her argument was NOT "Women have already argued their need for sexed spaces and I don't feel like going through them again".

just say your arguments.

Uhh, I already did? My argument was that "Because I say so" or an appeal to tradition are not arguments. Empty statements and fallacies cannot be used to justify anything, least of all widespread social policies.

When someone claims they're being victimised because, gasp, a person had the gall to take issue with their wrong comments multiple times on a debate sub of all places, and one with like five people on it, and this is some kind of personal crusade against their feelings specifically...Then uuh, yeah, I'm gonna call that out. It's not bad to be wrong, it IS bad to act like being wrong means you're a victim of a witchhunt.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

And other people are confirming that yes, it might lead to harrassment

Because they said women mistaken for men will be confronted in their bathrooms? So, we're back to the thing that you claimed wasn't harassment, but it now is? Or are you going to do the whole "I didn't literally say anything" dance, so it'll basically be that no-one is saying anything at all and we're all just putting random letters down?

Can you debate without resorting to middle school insults?

Debate cannot be had when you're intentionally sabotaging it with these tired tactics. And such tactics are worthy of every contempt, as well as the person employing them. If the person stops employing them, my contempt and disregard for such bs will also stop.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

If there is a black-only group on campus, say, isn't that the "exact same line [of] reasoning and arguments ... used equally to support things like white supremacy"? Why should people ever be segregated on the basis of skin color? Isn't that racism towards white students?

No, because the reason why a black-only group exists in the first place is due to racism in society rendering them necessary. The reason isn't "Because races shouldn't mingle". The reason isn't "Because black people are fundamentally different they can't function in regular mixed-race groups". The reason isn't "Because I say so". It's because of white supremacy. And this is also why white people can't form white-only groups. Because the reasons for these things are fundamentally different. It's really not hard to understand ffs.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Well, I'd hate to ever disrespect anyone's identity, that's like the most traumatising and abusive thing one person could do to another.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

sex based spaces already exist. They have to justify undoing that. We don’t have to justify maintaining it.

So your only argument is a fallacy of an appeal to tradition/popularity/status quo. Lovely.

We have listed the reasons why so many fucking times

If you don't like having to prove your point, feel free to leave the debate sub or any sort of debate in general. Intellectual laziness doesn't make "cuz I say so" a valid argument.

Your entire argument is that you "don't have to explain anything", because you're apparently some special majesty who's so important you should just decide how the universe works and everyone should nod.

this is starting to sound like just another one of your random moments of coming after one of my comments out of boredom or something.

lmao there are like 5 people commenting on the regular here. You're not some victim of stalking if you regularly say dumb shit that I call out. Seriously, get over yourself. I don't care who you are, I don't care what your life story is, I don't care if you think I'm being rude, I only care that someone's saying stupid shit that is wrong and deserves to be corrected and called out. It's that simple. If you can't handle being challenged or heaven forbid having to rationalise whatever comes out of your mouth, then don't join a debate sub.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Oh yeah, I wasn't talking about GenderBender specifically, just trans rights activists in general, like, almost every one of them. The whole "asking questions to derail and ignore the other points made" tactic is pretty popular with them. It creates the illusion that the conversation is two-sided without addressing a single thing. With trans rights activists it's almost always just a limited and repetitive selection of derailment tactics that might as well be copy-pasted every time because of how disconnected they are from anything being said (by design). Anything acknowledging the violence that men put women through is especially likely to get ignored or straight up denied, because it doesn't bode with the liberal notions of "Karens being bitches to trans people", and women being divisionary misandrists against men who just want nice things :,(

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Yeah, even if we got rid of the rape-culture in law-enforcement (already a tall order), the extreme frequency of male violence and creeping on women and the inherent difficulties of prosecuting these acts already renders any hope of justice for the majority of the cases impractical and futile, let alone the slew of cases that would happen if women lost any protections. Though actually what would more likely happen is that we'd get women traumatised and fearing leaving the house and being in public even more than they already do, but we could at least rest easy knowing that some male trans person will use their hermit ways as evidence of having a female brain.

The only way for spaces meant to protect women from male violence to stop existing is for male violence over women to stop existing. Calling women misandrists and bigots for needing spaces away from male violence in situations when they're vulnerable to it the most, and advocating the removal of their protections for that reason...I just have no words for how sick that is.

It’s all well and good for you to say you aren’t but that’s simply untrue.

Ok but what if they identify as a not-misogynist?

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Most rapes don't happen in public restrooms, and most victims know their rapist.

Oh my friggin god, the reason for this is not because strange men are all lovely proper gentlemen who'd never prey on women! Countless women experience strange men creeping on them all the fucking time, so these men are absolutely not some figment of their hysterical imagination! Of course that when women are so extremely weary of strange men all their lives (for a damn good reason) that they're going to be victimised by the men who they know and let their guard down around, and no shit that assaults rarely happen in female-only spaces where the mere presence of men is forbidden and alarming! jfc it kills me that people will literally use the limited measures that women use to protect themselves from ever-present male violence as evidence that male violence isn't a thing and that women are just making their victimisation up.

being out in public has risks.

Being in private also has risks. So, guess you don't need a door and a lock on your house, right? After all, you're being very exclusionary and bigoted towards others with that, treating them all as criminals. Are you advocating for the removal of those protections? I mean criminals can break into your house anyways, so what's the issue?

Also funny how just being in public is overwhelmingly risky specifically for women due to specifically male violence, and this has been the case throughout history and still is in many places, to the point of women being punished severely both by their male relatives and male strangers if they dare leave the house on their own. But I'm sure that's just the feminazi being hysterical and conspiring to rewrite history again. Women have done the same to men, after all, right? I mean, I'm sure they did...at some point...uh...Well, it's just people being assholes, right? And the identities and rights of the victims and their aggressors just happen to consistently go the same way out of a really funny and weird coincidence, hahaha!

But that's what you do when you're the victim of a crime.

OR you can actually advocate and receive certain protections so you lower your chances of being a victim of a crime. Like how you can put doors with a lock on your house and other security measures. But tell us again if you're keeping your doors open and letting strangers freely into your house. I'm dying to know. After all, you can just call the police afterwards.

Being against sex-segregated spaces ≠ hating other women.

Advocating for the removal of women's protections against the ever-present violence ruining their lives is misogynistic, and no amount of you just claiming it's not can change that. If your priority is endangering and blaming the victims of male violence even more instead of actually preventing male violence from happening in the first place, you are a part of the problem. "I'm not sexist, but..." is not the fool-proof disclaimer you think it is.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then it sounds more like they didn't forego the right to use female spaces, but rather the right to use them without raising suspicion.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

lol women are perfectly aware of what men are capable off. The vast, vast majority of them have been at least sexually harassed by men, many worse than that. Most already modify their movements and language, even if subconsciously, to this threat of male violence or even just overall misogyny. Nah, women know exactly what men are capable of doing, but female socialisation in an androcentric world is a powerful drug, so they're pretty much never allowed to prioritise their own interests as that would be "rude", "misandrist" and "bitchy".

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

The subject was whether women think there is any need for sexed bathrooms, not whether they support trans people. Most women are woefully unaware of what supporting trans rights actually means for their own rights, so supporting trans people doesn't actually mean they're willing to forego their own rights. If you go beyond the most extreme progressives who live more in their heads and their little queer bubble than the real world, you'll find that plenty of women are positively shocked at the idea that their spaces and sports should be erased out of existence.

Moreover, the women who start noticing something fishy are quickly made to fall back in line by being called bigots, bitches, rude, uptight etc. (basically the same tactics that liberal feminism always uses to shame women who refuse to play nice with the patriarchy). Gendered socialisation and the overall dismissal of the patriarchy in liberal circles gets used against women all the time because doing otherwise would get the male liberals pissy. Hence why liberal men keep pushing their patriarchal interests and making a mockery of feminism that they claim to represent, while women just keep endlessly assuaging men and promising them that they can still have their porn and prostitutes even if they can't be sexually harassed at work. It's not that women actually feel a need to support their own abuse and oppression that's objectively bad for them, it's that the power imbalance and socialisation goes in male favour, and women as always have to keep their heads down and know their place so as not to alienate their male "allies". So you get absurd things like women talking about some supposed pandemic of female-on-male rape and how dangerous women are to male trans people in their bathrooms and how not-misandrist feminism is against those poor men and how men jerking off into prostitutes is actually sexual liberation, while the male liberals keep making (usually bioessentialist) excuses for various aspects of rape culture and double standards against women, but claim it's all k because they support gay marriage. The people who barely cause any issues in these areas spend a disproportionate amount of time apologising, moderating themselves and claiming they'll do better on problems that they're not causing, while the ones actually causing the issues write them off as persecution, make excuses, or sweep it under the rug as something everyone's guilty of anyways.

Nevertheless, the negative effects on women's freedoms and safety are going to happen whether women virtue signal that they're ok with it or not, just as they keep happening even in countries where women think they're at fault for getting gang-raped for leaving the house without their husbands. Women believing they don't deserve rights and protections doesn't actually make the need for them unnecessary. Women still deserve not to be assaulted, harassed, killed, stalked, beaten etc. even if they feel they don't deserve any better.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Why do I have to explain to anyone why I want a space that’s already mine to remain mine?

Because excluding demographics from certain spaces has to have a fucking reason for it? Do you also think white people didn't have to justify the existence of whites-only spaces because "it was already theirs"? If you cannot provide any reason for it other than "Because I say so", then your argument is as valid as SelfID or appeal to tradition/status quo. If your exact same line your reasoning and arguments can be used equally to support things like white supremacy, then your logic is faulty and dangerous.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

women shouldn’t have to justify not wanting to share female spaces with men.

Segregating the sexes should be justified. Just saying "Because I wanna" doesn't cut it.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I remember there was a survey someone posted about how many women are comfortable with non-passing pre-op male trans people in their bathrooms. Sadly I don't have the link, but honestly, this is one of those things that are so fucking obvious you shouldn't even need to make a study confirming the obvious result. It's like making a study asking if women enjoy unprompted dick pics or getting groped by strangers, and then acting like their feelings on the matter are a mystery unless said studies are provided.

Don't take this the wrong way but I've noticed you like to answer back with questions that don't really address the main point?

I used to think they were asking these questions because they were actually thinking about the answers they were getting, turns out it's just a lazy derailment tactic and they'd be back to parroting the same old disproven arguments the next time they reappeared.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Women and feminists are the whole reason we have sexed bathrooms in the first place, so women have made their feelings on the matter very clear. As for what men think about women's rights and protections, who gives a shit?

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm saying how often these discussions with trans-rights-activists all go the same way. They say something, GC explains why it's wrong, TRA either disappears, repeats that transwomen are women or says that they "feel" differently or that that's just their opinion with no further explanation.

QT: Can men compete in women's sports if they meet all the same requirements of transwomen? by FlanJam in GCdebatesQT

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

a point that often gets made to justify allowing trans-identified males AND males with DSDs like Caster Semenya to invade and win in women's sports is that girls and women don't care that much about winning, setting records and getting sports glory in the first place coz due to our (supposedly) naturally less competitive, cut-throat and ambitious nature, we do sports for other reasons.

Christ, I don't follow anything sports-related, but I'm not at all surprised that these points would get made and probably with people legitimately not even realising how misogynistic they're being. Trans activism is so full of these gross bioessentialist arguments that are all of a sudden getting feminists on board who I feel just a decade ago would've been at your throat if you implied a female brain made women meek and submissive.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I believe all public facilities should be unisex. You believe all public facilities should be segregated by birth sex.

Uh, yes, I know. We've...established this? We've also established why your view is wrong. You seem to think that saying that you have a belief somehow makes it valid by virtue of it being a belief, and when faced with the reasons why your belief is faulty, you default to repeating that you hold a belief. Honestly, this seems like a comedy sketch where someone's trying to explain something to a very stupid person who just keeps repeating the same sentence no matter what evidence the other person gives them.

In that case we should be focusing our activism on reforming the criminal justice system, not self-ID or OnlyFans.

Right, don't focus on what's actively contributing to ruining women's lives en masse at this very moment, focus on "reforming the criminal justice system", whatever that means (could women even have lives if they took every man being inappropriate or a creep to court?). Make it easier for men to prey on women and let even more women get harassed, assaulted and traumatised, but at least tell women they won't be misandrist bigots anymore and that they'll surely get justice afterwards. What's most important is that we've upheld the rule of always blaming women for men ruining their lives.

If a space is open to the general public, it has no business excluding any demographic.

Becauseee...you say so, and your word is law? Why excuse me, your majesty. I would've agreed that the Earth is flat had I known whose presence I was graced with.

I mean...why even have toilet stalls, then? Or changing rooms? After all, you're being "exclusionary". A row of toilets in a single room should be enough, and changing rooms aren't needed because people can just change out in the open. Also, no lockers should be provided in any sort of public space because anyone should have the right to snoop through anyone's stuff as long as they're in public.

Hell, why even have private property at all? If a space exists on city grounds, it has no business excluding anyone from it, right?

I agree with you that women should not be perved on and stalked by creepy men.

So, you consistently lie and lie through your teeth about this reality that women endure, but at least you're such a goody two-shoes that you oh so kindly fantasise about a beautiful world filled with rainbows where this simply doesn't happen. Aaand that's supposed to make your constant lying and sabotaging of attempts to improve things somehow better.

I don't agree that public facilities should be segregated by birth sex.

"I believe the Earth is flat."

"Uh, no, we've literally got pics from space of the Earth, all the other planets are spherical, boats disappear when they sail beyond the horizon and..."

"I believe the Earth is flat."

Literally a comedy sketch.

As a cis woman who has been harassed and assaulted by both cis women and cis men, I purposefully say "people" to include everyone.

Yeeeah, either you're an extreme outlier or you're twisting what happened due to the constant misogynistic biases you've shown to parrot. Both cases make your experiences irrelevant to the topic at large. You can tell me a random child has beaten you with a baseball bat, that still wouldn't render child protection irrelevant and create a need for legalisation to protect adults from children.

Just because you are a victim of a crime doesn't mean you get to harass random people in public.

No, it just means that the victims overwhelmingly targeted by abuse to the point of it interfering with their lives in public deserve spaces where they can feel a modicum of safety in spaces designed to keep them safe from the people who overwhelmingly prey on them to the point of ruining their lives.

But hey, feel free to keep your doors open during the night and let any rando strangers walk into your house. As long as they don't literally start robbing you or worse, you have no right to do anything, right?

QT: Can men compete in women's sports if they meet all the same requirements of transwomen? by FlanJam in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You...literally said that you don't know why a man would do things like have lower testosterone or take oestrogen while still identifying as male. I'm kinda baffled that you're acting dumb over this?

QT: Can men compete in women's sports if they meet all the same requirements of transwomen? by FlanJam in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I imagine trans rights activists do see that, which is why they want to use women's sports for gender validation.

QT: Can men compete in women's sports if they meet all the same requirements of transwomen? by FlanJam in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You do know there are men with naturally lower testosterone and slimmer body builds, right? And there are even femboys who still identify as male who take oestrogen.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

absolutely nothing for transgender people benefits a majority. It’s absurd to compare the wants of a small group to the actual needs of people with disabilities

This is a flawed argument. It's not about what benefits a majority, it is about whether someone's demands are necessary and whether they infringe on other people's rights. Minorities should not have to prove that their rights benefit the majority in order for people to give a shit about accommodating them, but they also cannot make demands that will violate other people's rights and safety. i.e. gay people, despite being a minority, can make demands for equality, pedophiles cannot. And if gay people started demanding they be let into female spaces freely because straight men bully them, or demanded that biology be rewritten to claim that two men can reproduce in order to make gay people feel more "normal", that would be a different story.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Except...they didn't? These things were not put in place for the safety of the majority, and they certainly weren't put in place because the vulnerable groups asked for said protections. Sooo...what's the point of lying that this was "perceived" in a way it wasn't? Except because you know your entire argument is bullshit?

Let me spell this out to you, and I'll try to make it simple enough that even a trans rights activist will be able to understand it: Women have been preyed on and endangered by men for all of history, to the point of their freedoms, safety and privacy being severely violated this fact. That is why they needed and demanded protections in the form of female spaces, so they could function normally in the public sphere. This was not the case for racial segregation that was imposed onto black people against their will and due to ideas of white supremacy, nor for the lack of disabled spaces resulting from neglect and lack of visibility of disabled people's needs.

Now, using your ass-backwards logic, you could argue that having to have disabled parking spaces and ramps is no different from stoning a woman for being a witch, since both laws are in place because "the majority perceives it that way". Gosh, it's almost like there's more to this whole thing than just "what the majority says".

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Ah, so, you're just asking a stupid and pointless question to which we both know the answer is "no".

See, the whole problem with this idiot act is that, if you expect everything you say to be taken literally, in the most limited capacity and not be considered for what it actually is, you end up sounding even dumber than if you'd stuck to the original question.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whether I lied or didn't lie about statistics of male violence, I still believe all public facilities should be unisex.

Right. Why let facts and reality get in the way of what you "believe"? If you believe the Earth is flat, and the moon is made of cheese, then don't let anyone tell u otherwise, boo 😘

Yes, if someone is sexually harassing you or trying to rape you, etc. you have a right to call the police, complain to the manager or local authority and you always had that right.

Yup, when women get raped or assaulted, they should just call a time-out with their attacker until they call the police or sue them. And as we all know, justice rarely fails women in this area, and the biggest problem those privileged women face is being so overburdened by non-stop police reports that they can't function in day-to-day life normally, in which case, they should stop being such hysterical over-reacting misandrists. Now, sure, women will be traumatised to the point of fearing being in public even more than they already are, but at least they can rest assured that they can complain to the manager afterwards and leave a one-star rating.

What you don't have the right to do is to confront random strangers for no reason or question their presence. That is harassment.

If a space excludes them for safety reasons, then those strangers have no business being there in the first place. Does a person who breaks into your home need to kill you or rape you before you can do anything about it?

I agree with you.

Uuuh, no, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be lying through your teeth, sweeping the issue under the rug, parroting misogynistic myths and trying to remove protections and rights of vulnerable groups. Saying "I'm not sexist, but..." is not the fool-proof disclaimer you seem to think it is.

Unfortunately, there will always be evil people in this world.

I love how you say "people", like a well-trained parrot. Nothing whatsoever suspicious about the fact that sexual assault is committed almost exclusively by men to the point of most women's lives being controlled and endangered by this fact. Nah, it's just "evil people", because that lets us lie and gaslight everyone about a pandemic of male sexual violence and pretend it's everyone's problem.

This is why we have the criminal justice system to prosecute and incarcerate rapists and stalkers. Let's make it better!

By removing women's protections and only allowing them to confront their attackers after they've already been raped, because they're being such exclusionary misandrists towards the men consistently ruining their lives.

Victim-blaming women and shaming them for what misandrists they are because they're victimised and have their lives ruined by men is very feminist. After all, you only need to "feel" and "believe" that way, and that's it.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As more women become gender-nonconforming (which is a good thing), I have no doubt we will see these misunderstandings happen more and more. Misunderstandings don't render sexed spaces unnecessary or ineffectual, however.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Your claim was that appearing male effectively removes a woman's right to be in a female space.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I swear to god you could write a trans-activist bot and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Agreed. It's pretty shitty how a lot of GC insist that effeminate men don't get targeted with violence from other men.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

No-one said it doesn't matter, but that it doesn't trump their sex. If I wear a convincing gorilla costume and people freak out, that doesn't prove that I've turned into a gorilla, nor does it prove that we don't need to keep wild animals fenced off. Obviously whether a person gets mistaken for a man or a woman (regardless of whether they're trans) does factor into how they're treated. A woman with a masculine name might get more respect when writing e-mails, but that doesn't mean she's now a man or that she proves misogyny isn't a thing.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I think all restrooms should be unisex.

Oh look, it's the person who's continuously lied and ignored the statistics of male violence over women and the resulting need for women's spaces! You wanna disappear again?

I know GCs may not think that way.

Yeah, since we don't base our views on continuously lying and ignoring the statistics of male violence over women and the resulting need for women's spaces, we have sort of a different take on it. It's almost like lying and ignoring all evidence results in different takes compared to people who have a grasp on reality.

Really, unless someone is bothering you or committing a crime, you have no business confronting them.

Right, it's the women's fault that they can't live their lives and share spaces with men normally without the men using every opportunity to prey on them. They should just learn to accept these things as a normal, quirky part of life with men instead of being exclusionary bigots and putting petty fears like not wanting to get raped, assaulted and killed over male desires to prey on them even more easily.

That's how it should be.

Agreed. You know how it also should be? That women don't get perved on and stalked by creepy men, or be surrounded by men's misogynistic comments or get asked to do sexual favours for men. But I guess when you believe that male violence over women is just a conspiracy made by hysterical women, it's not surprising that you're happily blaming women for men ruining their lives to such an extreme that they literally need separate spaces for safety.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Even on the old GCdebatesQT sub, GC people were arguing men have a right to "sex-segregated" spaces for dignity, privacy, etc.

Far more people were arguing that it doesn't matter whether women want to go into male spaces (and in fact many women do go into male toilets when the need arises, i.e. no toilet paper or lengthy cues). The ones who took issue also generally did so because they knew this would be an overture to freely violating women's spaces next.

Like, I could use bopomofodojo's comment above to argue that GC doesn't care if passing male trans people use female bathrooms, but we both know that cherrypicking a few exceptions doesn't erase what the vast majority of the movement agrees on and actually fights for.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Does any woman who is mistaken for a man also forego that right?

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Do you think conservatives and radical feminists will be okay with trans men who pass using the women's bathroom and not harass them at all?

Women fearing male presence in their spaces and policing female spaces to keep men out is not "harassment".

This problem would be easily solved if people's IDs accurately reflected their sex. Women are right to call you out if they think you're a man violating their spaces, and you could clear this misunderstanding by confirming you are female. Your argument is like saying that we shouldn't have any restrictions on selling alcohol and cigarettes to minors because a small number of kids can be mistaken for adults.

For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, you're saying that racial segregation and a lack of disabled spaces actually kept the maximum amount of people safe? Mind trying to expand on your weird racist logic?

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Sexual harassment and sexual assaults is statistically high where I live compared to comparable places but the specific type of street harassment you refer to might be less common.

Do you go out much?

I haven’t really experienced that men would filter out what they think about women, I hear men openly say misogynistic things all the time. They trash talk women and want me to join in and get upset when I refuse.

This has been my experience as well, which is why I try to avoid friendships with men. Thinking about it, I imagine men only do this kind of filtering when they're in more equal environments like certain jobs that don't tolerate it, and environments with more equal gender ratios, due to the backlash. I can only imagine that the women who are surprised at the misogyny that men uncover around them might've surrounded themselves with liberal men and assumed that these men are not misogynists, like most women assume (and then get burned by). Moreover, men expecting high-fives for their misogyny doesn't mean they see you as male, it just means they think you also agree that women are subhuman, and as we all know, history is rife with women having to put up with this due to patriarchal norms.

It’s true we share human adult struggles with them but we share human adult struggles with all human adults, including adult males who don’t identify as women, so there is no reason to group with woman-identifying males in particular.

I feel that's like saying effeminate and weak straight men who get bullied for being gay must also be gay. Sure, both might suffer the effects of homophobia, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

people do see trans women as "feminine men" but that doesn't mean they are feminine men.

Oh absolutely. Them being men has nothing to do with how people perceive them, instead it's simply a biological fact. If everyone believed the Earth was flat, it still wouldn't be flat. The Earth didn't turn spherical just because enough people decided it was going to be that way, it's spherical simply because that's what it is, and how you, I or everyone in the world feels about it or whether they even know it has no bearing on that.

Despite this, however, how people perceive someone does matter insofar as what kind of socialisation they get, and it's simply not possible to live in a society and avoid gendered socialisation, hence why trans people act in line with it.

I also feel trans men are disregarded because they are seen as less threatening than trans women.

In other words, because they are seen as women, and women simply aren't a threat like men are, as proven by statistics you keep ignoring and lying through your teeth about.

The fetish book you have quoted claims that male trans people are marginalised because women are marginalised, because if people are judgemental of women, they are judgemental even more of...women who aren't actually women? As you yourself have had to admit, it's not because they're more of a woman than actual women, it's because they're simply feminine men, and recognised and treated as such.

I will use racism as an analogy.

Anti-racists aren't switching between claiming everyone is race-blind and claiming everyone is racist. Black people are marginalised because they are recognised as black, and this recognition carries with it ideas of racial inferiority/superiority that they are judged by, as well as race-specific conditions that they grow up in. A more apt analogy to the trans movement would be if we decided that racism was over if everyone just changed their race willy-nilly (i.e. if transracialism became mainstream), labelled all black people as privileged oppressors of trans-black people, and decided to focus all our efforts on combatting the true racism of people not believing any white person who says they're black.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

I will agree that having support from establishments does not translate into having support of the people and not being marginalised. It's a different story when trans people try to justify not advocating for their own spaces as being a result of their lacking political power, all while violating women's spaces, rewriting laws and making strides against women's protections.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They never tend to understand that chosing between "be stoned to death or wear burka" and "starve to death or sexually please men" is NOT a choice.

I think they understand, which is why they think the second an immediate threat of being stoned or starved disappears, they think there are no social pressures pushing women towards these things, despite very much being there. Kinda like how people think that just because most women aren't beaten anymore by their husbands and they can vote, that misogyny is a thing of the past.

Modern liberalism is pretty much seen as being ok with everything, not criticising anyone and letting everyone do what they want. So if you criticise the rampant misogyny in our society, you're actually being oppressive towards these people and also claiming that people aren't special snowflakes whose choices matter above all else. This is obviously opposed to making any strides for women, because this demands that the patriarchy be criticised and that people consider their sexist biases, instead of writing them off as "to each their own" and "choice" that just so happens to match patriarchal pressures.

Conservative party is more liberal than Democratic party in the USA

lol how exactly?

Don't worry about the Taliban ladies, just stop identifying as a woman by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The US has consistently destabilised countries that made strides in being more secular and that could push back against the Taliban, for its own political gain (like Syria and Libya). They've given money to militant religiously-motivated rebels that even they admitted weren't "ideologically pure in the way US would've wanted". One of their biggest allies is Saudi Arabia. Helping women has never been their goal, it was an accidental side-effect.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

“Women’s appearances get more attention, women’s actions are commented on and critiqued more than men, so in that world it just makes sense that people will focus more on trans women than trans men."

OR, it's because people have always felt more resentful of men, a superior life form that they are, stooping down to the level of inferior women. Meanwhile, inferior women trying to take on a superior male role are seen as mildly amusing. Men who take on a feminine gender role get the same sort of ire whether they identify as gay, crossdressers, trans etc. Male trans people aren't some special case, they're treated the same way other men in their basket are treated. People don't focus on male trans people because "they're actually women", but because they're feminine men. That is how they are perceived, which is why they get treated that way.

You cannot even form an opinion beyond using quotes and then ignoring any counter-arguments because you can't form a retort. Why do you think anyone here gives a fuck who "Julia Serano" is, or what his fetish book is called?

Many people accept trans identities, but that doesn't mean they aren't a marginalized group.

Trans people cannot both have everyone on their side seeing them as their desired gender, AND also complain about how everyone is misgendering them and refusing to believe people can change their sex.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Iranian government said they are repsecting women very much and they are very important in Islam. Taliban said that women "will have all rights they deserve" and that they are caring a lot about women.

Literally this. Studies constantly show that people just claiming they're not sexist has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they're actually sexist. It's draining that I constantly have to explain to people what is basically "This kid doesn't actually have a time machine just because they say they do, or because they pretend they're off to meet the dinosaurs". Like, this isn't even basic feminism, it's what should be common sense.

Isn't "this male is wearing a dress, so he must be a woman" - is vapid sexism?

I think they were referring to the liberal feminist notion of women being judgemental of other women who sexualise themselves for the male gaze or wear hijabs, which is, ya know, the real misogyny. And that's bad because according to liberal feminism, all these women choose their own oppression as the true individual snowflakes they are and the real misogyny is criticising their choices (a great example of why liberalism is utterly incompatible with progress for women).

How can you tell if someone is expressing their actual gender identity? by Fleurista in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When trans people exhibit transphobia or what is perceived as such is usually interpreted to be a manifestation of internalized transphobia and warrants pity, but when non-trans people exhibit or say the exact same things, then that is just plain transphobia and warrants aggressive action against 'bigots'.

I mean yeah, but that makes sense. The idea is that a member of an oppressed group isn't pushing an ideology to further a supremacist hierarchy in their favour, but are rather victims of their own oppression telling them they deserve their place, and brainwashed into supporting an ideology that treats them as subhuman because the dominant group says so. Obviously I disagree with the notion that trans people are oppressed by people not using whatever pronouns they tell them to, but if you do assume they are, then it makes sense to treat internalised and external bigotry differently, and that's consistent with other progressive movements.

I was sort trying to show how the basic logic of blindly accepting whoever says they are trans that they indeed are, that we can all be trans

We're not gonna get everyone saying they're trans, though, and even if they do, it wouldn't really change what the movement sees as bigoted since the concept of internalised bigotry is already known. The trans movement already instantly accepts anyone's gender regardless of anything and doesn't question it one bit. Even a rapist murderer targeting women gets treated as an actual woman the second he announces his new pronouns (and yes, there have been several cases of this). One's gender must not be questioned, ever, so it's unsurprising that how one feels about trans people or about women or gender roles or the patriarchy etc. has no bearing on anything.

Or are you saying that the mere possibility of someone being trans means we should consider their views possibly motivated by internalised transphobia rather than external? Honestly, I don't think that matters any more than it does in, say, the case of closeted homosexuals being bigots towards themselves.

The real problem with taking (specifically male) trans people on their word is that "there is no one way to be trans", and yet these people supposedly deserve the same protections and treatment that actual women do, even if their idea of being a woman is rooted in jerking off to sissy porn and wearing panties.

How can you tell if someone is expressing their actual gender identity? by Fleurista in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does assuming everyone's actions are genuine imply that everyone should say they're trans? How is it possible for everyone to be trans and for transphobia (however that's defined) to be a result of self-hatred?

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yup, women are never a threat to men. Talk about stereotypes.

Is that why no men fear women assaulting them, while women do? Is that why half of women are murdered by their male intimate partners while the reverse not only barely happens, and when it does, it's usually done by a victim of domestic violence towards her abuser? You've always so quickly gone silent when this reality of violence against women was pointed out to you, but that's never stopped you from disappearing, reappearing elsewhere, and still continuing to lie about this. You have been told the statistics before and even if you weren't, the ubiquity of male harassment in the vast majority of women's lives that isn't replicated in reverse should clue you in. You only have to open your eyes and think about the world around you, instead of parroting patriarchal delusions because men will get pissy and called out otherwise.

When you transition, you are the sex you identify as.

Based on what exactly? The amount of testosterone and estrogen in your body? This is not what sex is, or else we wouldn't be able to recognise the sex of men and women with hormonal disorders, and reproduction wouldn't still keep working the way it does in literally all cases known to humankind. Moreover, aside from making mentally ill people feel better, what is the benefit of actually changing the definition of sex from what it actually is to how much of a certain hormone you have in your body? The reality of one's sex is still impossible to change, and that is a simple biological fact.

Also, you do realise you're being transphobic, right? Trans ideology claims that people do not need to transition in order to be whatever sex they claim they are. How do you justify this transphobic view to fellow trans activists? Are you also the same transphobe who said you wouldn't have sex with female genitalia even if the person identified as male?

There are ways which men are disadvantaged by society over women. Pointing it out does not make you an MRA or a misogynist.

Continuously lying that women do not experience oppression while also lying about ways in which men do does. If you are parroting misogynistic myths for the sake of patriarchy, you are pretty much an MRA even if you don't actively identify as such. You don't need to actively be a member of a patriarchal movement to be affected by patriarchal brainwashing and misogyny. Again, "I'm not sexist, but" is not the excuse you think it is.

most trans men say that is not why they are transitioning

Right, just as you say you're feminist while lying, downplaying and covering up the oppression that women experience while pushing imaginary male oppression against all evidence to the contrary and women's lives being ruined as a result of this tradition of lying about their oppression. Just as traditional women claim they're not in misogynistic relationships when they think they deserve to be beaten and have their husbands control every aspect of their lives.

Again, "I'm not sexist, but" is not the excuse you think it is.

I have excellent critical thinking skills

lmao you continuously lie when faced with evidence to the contrary. Your comments usually don't even respond to anything that was said, but only stick to parroting "Transwomen are women". How in the flying fuck do you think that's compatible with "critical thinking skills"? You can't repeat whatever you've been trained to, refuse to respond to any criticisms, lie and ignore anything that rips your parroting apart, and brag about what great "critical thinking skills" you have lmao

Trans men aren't women.

See, if engaged in the kind of brainwashed parroting that you do, I would just respond "Female trans people are women". You would respond "Transmen are men" and we could keep going on and on like this forever. Given that my brain doesn't get a rush of "Wow I'm so smart" from just copy-pasting a single statement regardless of what is being said, I can't actually do this dance with you. But I can take it further and explain why women biologically cannot become men and vice versa, and also why trans ideas (along with a host of other accompanying misogynistic ideas) are damaging to women's rights. And it's not because "they feel that way".

I actually don't care if you feel that "transwomen are women" or that cats are actually dogs or if the Earth is flat. No, really, I don't. What I do care is when you cannot justify this statement with anything. If you say the Earth is flat, I will demand you to explain why. If you merely respond with "The Earth is flat" and then add that you have "great critical thinking skills", how convincing do you think I'll find that to be?

Yes. There are women who opposed women's rights to vote. There are women who believe women should be restricted to certain occupations. There are women who harshly judge other women for not meeting their standards of modesty.

I don't know if you've ever spoken to these women, but very, very few of them will tell you they hate women and that women are subhuman. So, by your logic, they are not sexist, nor do they actually hate women. See, that's the problem with "I'm not sexist, but...". Even women beaten by their husbands and the husbands who beat them have used this. It's almost like people parroting mantras that are directly at odds with all of their sexist behaviour and ideals doesn't magically render everything they do not-sexist. It's almost like things exist beyond just people telling you stuff that isn't true, and you having to believe them in order to be emphatic and validating.

Also, I love how your example of "real" sexism is vapid stuff like "Being judgemental of the way someone dresses" while here you are, literally lying though your teeth about all the assaults, rape, deaths and terror that men put women through. Honestly, I'd rather you criticised someone's shoes than pushed the delusional male fantasy of women lying about their oppression and actually being the real abusers of men.

So the Reddit threads I cite aren't surprising but aren't evidence either?

Evidence of what? That trans people go against radical feminism, pander to men and believe they have magical gendersouls or brainsex compelling them to transition? Yes. I know. Duh. How is this relevant? Can you spend more time actually addressing what I say without lying or ignoring it and less time hunting down friggin Reddit threads that tell me all the things I've already addressed and explained why they're in line with patriarchal socialisation? What's next, you're gonna hunt down comments about women claiming they don't need abortion and gendered spaces to prove that feminism is bs?

Also, ofc you're only gonna get the affirming trans stuff when anyone who takes issue with it gets banned.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Anyway trans men are invisible in society compared to trans women.

  1. Men are a threat to women. Other women can suck up to a patriarchal society, but they're ultimately not the ones causing the issues, nor are they a threat to other women. As such, GC focuses on upholding the rights of women in face of a male threat.

  2. Misogynistic movements tend to disregard women, which is why you see the same patriarchal dynamics play out the same way, even when the parties involved roleplay as the opposite sex.

All of this is predictably in line with the patriarchy and pretty easily explained.

A few trans men have said people will make statements like "men are trash" but then turn around to them and say "no, not you!" as if they aren't men.

It's almost like even supposedly progressive people understand why trans ideology is bullshit. They know that women do not pose a threat, no matter how much they roleplay as men. As such, they forget to lie and pretend that they do, and trans people as usual freak out when they're reminded of reality and demand that others play into a lie.

Male trans people are still the ones with male-pattern violence like sexual assault and homicides. If you think this fact is unfair solely because it's not gender-affirming to trans people, try thinking of the women who are actually targeted by and who experience this male-pattern violence, and then ask yourself which of these two is an actual problem that needs to be addressed.

Also masculinity is not so much celebrated in society as much as femininity

Is this going to end up with you going full MRA claiming that men are actually the real victims of society?

Just don't forget to mention that you're totally not misogynistic, but...

most trans men are more supportive of the trans movement than gender critical feminism

Duh. More women in general are supportive of progressive movements. I have yet to come across a progressive movement where women didn't let others walk over them, or threw other women under the bus for the patriarchy's approval.

Funny enough GCs say trans women talk over trans men way more than trans men say that themselves. Yet GCs themselves talk over trans men.

I mean, we also talk over women who think it is their duty to be an obedient slave to their husband and a walking sex doll for the male gaze. Talking over misogynistic women has always been what feminism does. Certain women being invested in supporting and excusing the patriarchal system because they don't want to rock the boat and they think they can make it work in their advantage does not discredit feminism. If it did, women wouldn't get the right to vote because they'd just agree to not talk over the women who thought they didn't need the right to vote. The key difference is that we're not progressive men talking over women, like how male trans people talk over female trans people.

They keep insisting trans men are only transitioning to escape sexism or that they are lesbians in denial or are fetishizing gay men. Most trans men say that is not the case.

Is there any misogynistic woman out there who just comes out and says that she hates women? Misogynistic people's "I'm not misogynistic, but..." disclaimers are worth jackshit. What matters is the kinds of views they espouse and support. I don't for a second believe that self-hating women who parrots misogynistic ideas aren't in any way motivated by these views, and that they're instead lead by some gendersoul or whatever. I'm gonna go for a more logical conclusion here.

Also, what is it with you using Reddit threads as...evidence? I've talked to plenty of trans people and been to their spaces. None of what you say is in any way surprising to me, or the GC movement. It's pretty consistent with how men and women act under patriarchal pressures in other areas as well.

Awards Shows by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is not narcissistic to not want to deal with being objectified and fetishised. The problem is in the movement's misogynistic bias, where women are continuously told to know their place for the sake of liberating men's dicks because women aren't seen as actually oppressed beyond just being uptight prudes, while everyone else gets to be above them in oppression rankings. Admittedly, the trans activism's notion that women are gender-affirmed by their oppression also doesn't help, but I believe it all still relies on the same idea. Trans people as a result of their mental illness generally have very twisted understanding of gender roles, so the actual extent of the patriarchy is either unknown to them because of their socialisation (this applies more to male trans people), or it's viewed through the pink lens of gender-affirmation. Liberal feminism is more concerned with affirming everyone and recontextualising the status quo as actually liberating, than making them understanding the extent of the patriarchy.

That's not to say there isn't plenty of shittiness from trans individuals trying to throw people under the bus and undermine social progress for the sake of their gender affirmation, but you can say that about any group of individuals. The bigger problem is in how a supposed feminist movement enables them to do this to the detriment of women and portrays it as a fight for basic human rights.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The reason is GC complains themselves the the trans movement doesn't focus on trans men

Misogynistic movements tend to disregard female people, hence why the trans rights movement performs in line with said roles. Again, the whole of trans ideology has consistently acted in line with patriarchal attitudes, and the reasons for this have been noticed and pointed out by radical feminists.

So thanks for the validation that he's not a woman! :)

Awesome :) ! So, every single time a trans person gets "misgendered", it's comfirmation that they're not actually what they claim to be, right? Dunno about you, but I see a metric ton more cases of misgendering, including from supposed allies of the trans movement, than I see cases of people "forgetting trans people exist", so, I guess that's a win against trans ideology, right?

Disclaimer: I personally think that the ad populum fallacy is ridiculous and pathetic, and I roll my eyes whenever both sides try to employ it. I'm just working with your logic here.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

I agree. That still doesn't make the oft-repeated notion of most people being on GC side in any way accurate.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The policies I advocate are for the real world in the here and now

Just because you advocate a policy for a current issue does not excuse a complete lack of thought into any of its future implications and reasons for existence.

I have never heard anyone say there'd be "no need for sexed spaces" and "no basis" for them anymore.

lol what an argument. I've never heard of tau neutrinos either, but that doesn't make them stop existing.

So in the post-patriarchy utopia as you envision it, there'd be no spaces for lesbians or gay guys that exclude members of the opposite sex?

People have the right to form spaces on the basis of certain shared interests and identities. That is entirely different from legal protections for said spaces because they are necessary to lead a normal life, as is the case with women.

So a world without patriarchy would mean "no basis" for separate male and female sports?

Obviously sports require a sex-based division, as do medical issues. These divisions are based in physical differences in male and female bodies requiring different expertise and different evaluation standards. This is different from spaces that serve to protect women from the social problem of patriarchal violence and harassment. Women are still targeted specifically for their sex, but the reason why they need protection is entirely external.

No separate accommodations for the two sexes in jails and prisons, hospital wards/rooms, LTCFs, dorm rooms, school and scouting trips?

If we were ever to reach a world where men did not pose a threat to women in these environments, yes.

In the post-patriarchy utopia you imagine, women who go to, say, a community swim pool with their teen or adult sons and male in-laws will have to share the same change rooms and showers with them?

If they would get naked with their male parents, why would they not with their female parents?

Will getting rid of patriarchy mean the vast majority of boys and men won't be heterosexual any more, and/or they won't have eyes and dicks?

It's unlikely that most men would be heterosexual if we got rid of the patriarchy. Most "heterosexual" men really just have a fetish for femininity and misogyny. Moreover, you can be heterosexual and not act like a creep, just as homosexual people manage to do.

And that within families and households, there will be no need or basis anymore for the kinds of sex separation that customarily is put in place as children grow up and relationships change?

How exactly do you think gay people are able to function? Is there sexual tension between every non-straight family member?

Such as girls no longer being seen naked by their dads or brothers once they hit puberty? And pubertal boys being given bodily privacy by their mothers - and vice versa - too?

If the same things were to be normal with their same-sex family members, then yes.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Exactly how much of your understanding of how the general population views these topics is based on Reddit and other online forums?

The general population isn't on GC side. The general population still very, very much believes in gender.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Most mainstream feminist subreddits and other feminist and social justice groups see gender critical posts as outrageously sexist.

Men also think feminism is a sexist matriarchal movement advocating male genocide. People being stupid and ignorant doesn't really say much beyond the fact that they're stupid and ignorant. Liberal feminism and trans activism has continuously failed to argue their points without advocating patriarchal ideology. You can see this play out numerous times on this very sub. Just saying that a group is "sexist" because it gets men's dicks angry doesn't mean a thing. Can you actually prove it? There has yet to be a single trans activist that's been up to the task and capable of forming arguments beyond "Transwomen are women because I say so". The reasons why trans activism and liberal feminism go against female rights have been continuously explained by GC, and trans activism has never been able to even attempt to disprove any of it.

I believe sex matters in terms of biological functions, for instance abortion rights and menstrual pad access.

So...you acknowledge the reality of women's biology...but women themselves are a figment of imagination? How do you work with this level of cognitive dissonance? It's like saying "I acknowledge human biology, but I don't think humans are real"

I think restrooms and changing rooms should be gender neutral.

And the threat of male violence, assault and harassment that they exist in the first place to protect women from are just...what? Going to be whisked away if women stop being so exclusionary towards men?

Wait, are you the same person who's continuously lied about the reality of violence and harassment that women face at the hands of men even after being given copious evidence proving you wrong?

fetuses can't change their gender.

Why?

I said although people AFAB are mostly treated like men, they will still be subject to issues specific fo people AFAB.

And why do you think that is? Who do you think made it so that "AFAB" people don't have penises and need sanitary pads for their periods? The TERFs? The patriarchy? Cis women?

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gay men are men. Never forget that.

Awards Shows by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It still baffles me that trans people can complain about being objectified and fetishised, and have liberals rush to kiss their boo-boos, but when women do it the same people call them uptight prudes, sex-negative, misandrists, extremists, controlling etc.

All: "Trans women" at the Olympics by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Reminds me of all the "non-binaries" who still stick to female spaces for protection. Also I've seen tons of female trans people get angry at "transphobes" when they get disregarded as women which is just ???

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

People can sue you, you can sue them... That's different from a movement focusing on certain goals. In fact, it is a common complaint among trans activists that GC ignores female trans people and focuses only on men, despite even the most cursory overview of GC ideology showing the reasons for this (men present a danger to women, vice versa isn't the case).

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Your way of "fighting sexism" seems to be to deny that sex matters - or when you do acknowledge that sex is real and does sometimes matter, your tack is to minimize how much it matters and to gloss over and refuse to see or address most of the RL situations in which it matters.

Sounds like standard liberal feminism to me.

All: If you were put in charge of deciding policies surrounding sex/gender identity in your state/province/country/whatever, what would you implement? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Them being men doesn't disappear into "medical history" just because they perform enough amputations and get plastic surgeries. No-one owes you an escape from reality.

All: If you were put in charge of deciding policies surrounding sex/gender identity in your state/province/country/whatever, what would you implement? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Much of society would prefer there be no such thing as trans women.

I don't think so. Society finds it much easier to understand a man who rejects masculinity because he feels he's a woman than a man who rejects it because...well, just because.

You are arguing for snake oil for the suffering when real effective treatments exist.

Alternatives should be looked into when said "treatment" involves healthy body part amputations, plastic surgeries and a lifetime taking hormones not meant for your body, either repressing or destroying your body's normal healthy hormonal production.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

There really is no need for sexed spaces once you remove the patriarchy. There is no basis for them. Male and female bodies being different does not translate into needing separate spaces for them.

I also don't see men being particularly self-conscious of their bodies, aside from anxieties over penis size that is more in place because of other men anyways and its association with masculinity. Men are not saddled with the beauty standards that women have their entire personhood defined by, nor is there a history of stigmatisation of their bodies. In fact, they're very loud, proud and in-your-face with their bodies and bodily functions and tend to think the universe revolves around their penises. As usual, the worst treatment men can expect in this area comes from, you guessed it, other men.

respect for boundaries has to go both ways.

Becauuuse...? Women aren't the ones with an entire history of disrespecting men's boundaries and leering at them, to the point that they couldn't even leave the house due to constant sexual harassment and assault. No, protections do not need to go both ways because protections serve to protect the people who are actually endangered.

You proceed to talk about a person's normal right to privacy, which would apply both to their female and male family members. That is different from claiming that people must have privacy specifically from the opposite sex for really no reason.

I don't think we can expect boys to grow up into men who respect girls' and women's boundaries if we don't respect their boundaries in turn

Men don't understand boundaries because they don't experience the same traumas and dangers that women experience. Men are the ones who'll tell you it'd be awesome if they were sexually assaulted, because sex still by and large revolves around their pleasure and wants, glorifies their lack of self-control and overblown sexuality, and doesn't treat them as worthless objects for someone else's one-sided sexuality in all aspects of their life.

the more guys in general are going to feel less and less compunction about entering female spaces like the women's area of Wi Spa and pulling out their dicks and waving them around in the faces of women & girls of all ages.

What a stretch. Men already don't care about that. That's why they employ such a long list of double standards to control every aspect of a woman's life, and not once do they think of how it would be if this was applied to them. They apply entirely different rules to women to excuse their shitty treatment of them. A woman walking into their spaces isn't going to make them disregard women's spaces any more than women having to cover their chests is going to make men ashamed of being topless. They might try to whine about the double standards regarding sexed spaces and how unfair towards men it is that women are abused to such an extreme that they literally need separate spaces to lead a semblance of a normal life, but they already do that.

I also believe that saying "GC doesn't care" about the rights or boundaries of males because to some GC persons the rights and boundaries of males matter less than the rights of females do, or they matter not at all, is only going to turn potential allies away from the "GC" side.

LMAO what is this libfem attitude of shedding tears over male allies feeling "alienated"? There is no feminist movement that isn't going to alienate men. None. Even liberal feminism, for all its desperation to pander to men, is still seen as a matriarchal dictatorship by them.

GC cares a lot about not alienating and hurting the feelings of its conservative cesspool, but it fails to realise that the men who can't form a thought beyond spamming "there are only 2 genders!" and calling feminine men "trannies" aren't actually "on their side" just because they happen to turn their brainless ire on trans people. Instead of caring about alienating those patriarchal shit stains, GC should instead think about how it's alienating the women who don't want to suck up to misogynistic men just so they'd get their very limited back-stabby "support".

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

Hell, why stop there? Healthy people don't need medical services. Let's just destroy hospitals for the sake of fairness, they literally discriminate against healthy people.

GC: What are "sex-based" rights? by Genderbender in GCdebatesQT

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

we also believe trans men should have the right to use men's restrooms and changing rooms.

They already have this right, and GC doesn't care about revoking it, because women do not present a danger to men. As long as women have their spaces and their usage by women is taken for granted, the woman has the right to leave those spaces if she so chooses.

As long as you keep lying and being delusional in regards to how dangerous men are to women's well-being and how the opposite is not the case in the least, sex-based protections will not make sense to you. But that's like saying that as long as you keep insisting the Earth is flat, that astrophysics will seem like a conspiracy and giberrish.

All: What are some non-trans related issues that you would like others to be more aware of? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't have an in-depth understanding of the evolution of the movements so my impressions are based purely on how I've noticed the more casual discourse change over the years, i.e. before trans activism vs after. All the problems with liberal feminism look like your average pandering to horny ""devil's-advocate"" male liberals, and that results from the usual socialisation putting male misogyny above women's rights and dignity. Liberal feminism has been problematic way before trans ideology started taking centre stage, and most of its problems needn't involve trans ideology at all and are more easily explained by wanting to (often literally) sell women a safe, mainstream version of feminism that won't get their boyfriends pissy, where everything is fine as it is so long as you yell "girl power!". Perhaps it's a result of said "girl power" becoming a popular thing to market to girls in the...what, 80's? 90's? already rooting in the mind of little girls a pandering, male-approved popular image of feminism. Also I'm sure their messaging about how women are just as strong as men is a huge factor in so many people supporting men in female sports.

Feminism can't really hold a candle to the patriarchy as far as societal influence goes, so it can't give women value when the patriarchy keeps beating them into the ground every single day since childhood while giving them the easy "just be pretty and you will be loved" solution. Women who are socialised all their lives that the only worth they have is their femininity, with a plethora of accompanying trauma and anxieties (by design), aren't just going to reject that, even when they're aware of how damaging it is for them. The mere implication of making women reject femininity still gets shouted down as extreme, because that would make them lose the only value as a woman in a world of men, the only ability they have. So liberal feminism sells women the idea that they can have both their cake and eat it too: they can be beautiful, feminine and (insert everything else that society discourages or punishes women for). So their only form of societal worth is preserved while also acknowledging the unjust elephant in the room that the pesky feminists keep bringing to their attention.

Most men are bioessentialist, and that applies to liberals. They're going to want to hear that women endure their trauma because their brains evolved for it, much like how they'll want to hear that women deserve male abuse and discrimination for the same reason. To get their support, liberal feminism must somehow pander both to liberal male supremacist ideology where female submission and suffering under men signifies male freedom and a proper, natural world order, but also it has to sell women the idea that this suppression is empowering and something they freely choose for themselves (which also lets them kinda skirt around the bioessentialism because oppressors' victims don't like hearing that it's in their biology to be oppressed as much as their oppressors do). If you can do that, you can not only sell a much easier, status-quo-appealing form of liberation to anxious, traumatised women clinging onto their only form of worth, but you can even turn this plight into its own struggle for justice, justice for femininity, the real victim of oppression. It's not unfair that women are subject to all this crap for having the gall to be born female, but rather, the real injustice is that femininity (focusing heavily on sexual submission to men, both to make it more appealing to them and because that's the reason femininity exists in the first place) has been so unfairly marginalised and isn't seen as strong and empowering, to the point of vilifying women who reject femininity as suffering from "internalised misogyny" and being bigots against "sex work", swerfs akin to racists. Now traditional women can feel powerful for doing what they're pressured into all their lives because they can tell themselves it's all an intentional, wilful act of defiance and empowerment on their part. This also plays into society constantly calling women "powerful" for men being horny and wanting to fuck them. Men ofc love hearing this, because to them, it's all the usual confirmation of ladybrains and the proper world order, but one that makes them sleep better at night. It goes without saying that women are choosing their oppression, because women have evolved to be oppressed by men and to enjoy it. It's not a result of men being awful, and now they can even call themselves feminist for jerking off to porn stars. They're encouraging women's self-expression and freedoms, helping them accept themselves in the modern world pushing them farther from their true, natural role.

Trans people saw this, and swooped in: the silent, implied bioessentialism was perfect for revitalising the concept of ladybrains in feminist movements, and femininity as the real victim is what makes a man with she/her pronouns equally as oppressed as a woman. Once you make gender oppression be all about freely-chosen femininity, why couldn't anyone choose it and become a woman? In fact, wouldn't the men choosing it be the most oppressed of all? Doesn't anyone ever think of men and their oppression?

Also, liberal feminism's "sex-positivity" and "no kink shaming" is the perfect breeding ground for ideas like an anus being equivalent to a vagina and fetishistic men being the real victims.

All: What do you think about "non-binaries" and other "gender identities"? by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Do you think there are differences between them and people who identify as the opposite sex or not?

I'd say a negative fixation on one's sexed characteristics to the point of amputating them is a serious mental illness, though one very much rooted in societal pressures. Nonbinaries mostly seem to be just a new brand of NotLikeOtherGirls that's not willing to take it as far as the women who insist they're men.

What do you think of neo-pronouns?

If pronouns suddenly don't signify sex, then I fully support whatever bs a person can think of for their pronoun. In fact, I find de-sexing third-person pronouns, as an element of English that isn't even close to universal, far less batshit crazy than pretending you can de-sex literal human beings just by changing their pronouns.

Do you think people who identify as such should be able to get their official documents changed to reflect their "gender identities" instead of their sex?

If we can all play-pretend that men are women because they want to be, then the same should apply to nonbinaries. Why is one utter lie somehow better than another utter lie? Both of them are the sex that they are and that's a fact, which makes their claims to the opposite sex, or no sex, as valid as their claims to being a wolf or a dragon.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's precisely why the whole masculinity-femininity dichotomy doesn't work. Men are raised with useful, self-serving skills and allowed the freedom to be average and normal and not have their whole appearance and behaviour revolve around coddling and serving others. The patriarchy also makes sure that the world revolves around them while excluding women as aberrations. A woman who rejects femininity isn't "masculine" or "male" or "genderqueer". She is normal, something that always should've been the standard for women just as much as it is for men.

All: What are some non-trans related issues that you would like others to be more aware of? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

It blows my mind that "feminism" is doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify something so overtly and shamelessly one-sided and misogynistic, just so men wouldn't have to think about the way their entire fucked up sexuality treats women.

All: What are some non-trans related issues that you would like others to be more aware of? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Fairly related, but liberal feminism is a godawful movement and I wish GC recognised how much all the toxic aspects of trans ideology directly feed off of and abuse its ideas. Even if trans activism specifically is the one currently doing the work of removing women's rights, it wouldn't happen if the misogynistic thought-stopping ideals of liberal feminism didn't have its back and train women that it's super feminist to "choose" to pander to men and get trampled over by them. Liberal feminism is basically the patriarchy for people who want to sleep better at night.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

is me squirming out of answering this.

Sooo, why did you only now answer the question then? What was the point of this typical little derailment dance that every QT poster has to do?

Yes, misgendering is ok. Is that clear enough for you?

Suuure. So, are you resisting social and legal demands to make misgendering unacceptable, or are you silently approving of it? Doing the latter doesn't suddenly make you unaccountable because it's "people you don't know" doing the work to make these ideas a reality.

They're not my arguments though

Lying, denial and avoidance do not change what you say in any meaningful capacity.

when I did distance myself from them, you wrote me a novel about why I'm not allowed to do that.

Skirting out on responsibility for furthering toxic and irrational views is not distancing yourself from toxic and irrational views. Neither is proceeding to parrot these same toxic and irrational views with merely a disclaimer about how you wish they weren't toxic and irrational. You cannot claim you've distanced yourself from something while continuing to parrot it.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Again, just saying that you don't support toxic and irrational ideas isn't enough when this contradicts your own statements. You wishing that your views weren't toxic and irrational is completely irrelevant to the fact that they are. There's a reason why no-one takes "I'm not sexist, but..." seriously, because it's as valid as saying "I'm a unicorn". If you don't like how your statements make you sound, either reword and rationalise them so they're no longer toxic and irrational, or say you've changed your mind, instead of beating around the bush and complaining because people hold you accountable for what you're brainlessly parroting.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Wow, this is the literal exact opposite of what I said earlier re: words.

And it fell apart to a laughable degree, with you completely failing to respond with anything other than pathetic "I shouldn't be held responsible for justifying my illogical views" derailment tactics. Yeah, welcome to a debate sub.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Your reading comprehension is really bad if you think I said either of these things

The reasons for this have been explained to you. You have failed to address or clarify any of it, and have focused only on the fact that you don't like being held responsible for toxic and illogical views. Boohoo. Welcome to a debate forum where you gotta put more effort than saying "words don't mean a thing".

The entire rest of your novel is not even relevant to me.

It directly addresses your claim of "I'm not interested in defending ideas I don't hold or defending people I don't know."

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

I actually didn't say compelled speech is bad.

generally being against compelled speech and language policing doesn't mean all language is okay at all times.

So, is it ok to "misgender" when your religious beliefs don't align with gendersouls? You keep squirming out of answering this, and we both know why.

How do you police language if you are against language policing?

Like attributing other peoples thoughts to me

If you don't like the logical extension of your own arguments, either distance yourself from them, or explain why they don't follow. Complaining that you're held responsible for the toxic and irrational views you're parroting isn't the sort of silver bullet you think it is. And no, just claiming you don't like these extensions of your own claims with no basis other than "I don't like it" isn't enough.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm not interested in defending ideas I don't hold

You're the one who's made claims that trans people aren't persecuted and that everyone is already on the same page with them, which is inconsistent with what trans activism is claiming. If you make claims that are incorrect or damaging, it is up to you to confirm or distance yourself from them when you're called out on them, instead of hiding behind "Well, I didn't mean for it to sound bad or nonsensical". I really really don't care what you wish your claims sounded like, what matters is what they're actually saying and the direct negative effects they have on our society.

defending people I don't know.

It's too bad that reality goes farther than your circle of friends. People you or I "don't know" and don't go out for coffee with are hard at work dismantling women's rights, and I have no interest in sipping coffee with them and getting to know their life story just so I could have the "right" to call them out on their shitty practices. I don't need to get chummy with fascists so I could take a stance against their ideology.

You are in a position where you know you benefit from these "people you don't know" pushing hard against women's rights, and it's even worse if you admit that personally, you recognise their positions are full of shit, but refuse to call them out due to shared benefits and privileges you are reaping from said violations of rights. Claiming that it doesn't concern you because of your privileged status doesn't actually make irrational and damaging statements you and your side is making acceptable. These statements by themselves being misogynistic or illogical is par for the course with QT, and I have no issue with that given that the person making them attempts to rationalise them. I do have issue with lying and squirming out of recognising the reality and the very real effects of their ideology just because you "don't want to think about it". QT that can even attempt to form a coherent argument are pretty rare, but it's worthless if your very next sentence is just going to be "transwomen are women" anyways. That's just the usual brainwashing with a couple of more steps in between trying to make the person feel less bad for knowingly parroting toxic and irrational views and thinking it's mean to expect them to rationalise them.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

A comparison that directly results from your own statement. If you don't like that your own statements are fucked up, that is a problem with your own arguments, rather than their logical conclusions.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Ah. So women not being consistently vilified, excluded and treated as subhuman in everyday language as a result of centuries of patriarchal dominance is too much, and comparable to people demanding that everyone lie they're the opposite sex because their gendersoul is real.

Kind of doesn't seem comparable, does it?

Both: Are sexual stereotypes about men and women in the bedroom true? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

I would engage with someone who believes that then.

I engage with anyone who makes claims consistent with that. People claiming they believe or don't believe something independent of their claims is 100% irrelevant to me.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

I have already said it varies based on your environment.

What I'm talking about happens in the progressive West, your supposed trans utopia, where the narrative of extremely victimised trans people being driven to suicide by misgendering and targeted with violence dominates all liberal and feminist discussion now, to the point of being used to dismantle women's protections ASAP. Why is trans activism even a thing here when everyone already agrees and accepts them as their wishful gender?

I haven't said I was either.

General you. I am talking about trans people and trans activism.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

How do you feel about misgendering? How do you feel about trans activism demanding people who do not believe in gendersouls pretend they recognise gendersouls?

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

the words male and female have more than one meaning

Yes, there are casual meanings, and there are actual, real meanings that correspond to reality. No-one in their right mind believes cables are actually male or female, even though they might call them that, just as no-one believes that a dinosaur toy is a real dinosaur just because they call it a dinosaur, or that their pet is literally their child just because they call them that.

Why would this be transphobic?

It defines male and female according to sex, not gendersouls. Admittedly there are plenty of examples of sexism/gendersouls being casually used in this way so I'm not sure if you intentionally didn't want to use them or recognised how sexist they are when they are used.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

In progressive parts of the world, most people obviously resonate with the idea of gender identity enough to give it precedence in things like laws

Again, what's with endless whining about misgendering then and going stealth? Everyone cannot be on the same page with trans people and also discredit them so consistently that this is seen as a massive social issue. Pick one. Are you privileged, or are you disinfranchised? You cannot be both depending on how supreme you want to feel.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

If you demand that people who do not believe in gendersouls and in fact are deeply uncomfortable by the misogyny present in the concept call male people female and vice versa on the basis of said gendersouls, that doesn't sound like tolerance of beliefs that don't resonate with people.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

That people calling cables male or female makes it valid to claim that actual male people are female and vice versa? That's quite a leap in logic you're making, there.

And you realise that the only reason why the connectors are called male and female is that they resemble male and female sex organs, right? So, I guess cables are transphobic?

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Yes, but it's usually in the context of certain gender roles that are very obviously social. Women did not evolve to look like modern Western feminine women, such a thing simply isn't possible. Wearing a hijab makes some women "feel like a woman". Having long hair makes women "feel like a woman". Women weren't born with long hair and hijab skin flaps covering them, these are social expectations placed on them, usually to a woman's detriment.

Certainly men and women are raised to "feel more like a man/woman" through emulating patriarchal norms that are damaging to women. You might speak of "gender identity" in that way, but we already have "gender roles" for that. This should be considered unhealthy and sexist in any actual feminist movement.

QT, if gender is innate to identity by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Does this "instinctual identification" also apply to other races? Animals? Mythical creatures? Disability? Mental illness?

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Defining gender identity according to feeling is like defining humans according to who feels like a human, which would mean science should account for otherkin and accept there are human-formed wolves and dragons walking among us, and define the human species not according to biological reality (which, after all, varies from person to person) but according to their "species identity".

Gender identity is the personal sense of being male, female, or neither.

We do not feel male or female any more than we feel human. We recognise that we are male or female, just as we recognise that we're human and not wolves nor dragons.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

No, I understand this. I'm saying that the GC community as a whole is a small minority and your beliefs are fringe beliefs.

Sooo why all the complaining from trans people about being misgendered? Why going stealth? How can trans people at the same time be the most persecuted delegitimised group in the world and also have their opinions be the dominant narrative that everyone and their mother's dog accepts and agrees with?

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't have a problem with people who don't work within the framework at all if it doesn't resonate with them.

So, why the compelled speech, then?

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

male and female connectors must blow your minds.

...you do realise that male and female connectors aren't actually male and female, right?

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

Because those definitions are consistent and based in actual, measurable reality. "A rock is a concreted earthy or mineral matter" and "A rock is dust from unicorn horn shaped into a tree with hands for branches" and "A rock is anything your heart desires, from the sky to worms in the ground", all of these are definitions, but being "definitions" does not make them equally valid.

What is gender nonconformity to you? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

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

So a person who thinks of themselves as a wolf actually is a wolf? Homo sapiens isn't real?

All: Why do you think the "other side" believes what they do? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

For trans people, it's simple: it's gender-validating, and women's rights will always take second place to that. For liberal feminists, it's similar: women's rights always take second place to virtue-signalling about what a good considerate feminist you are by prioritising everyone other than women, who are seen as practically privileged because of how constant and ubiquitous discrimination against them is.

what do you think leads someone to becoming QT or a TRA?

Liberal feminism. It packages mainstream gender roles into a new, prettier box, and sells it back to women as empowerment. Trans ideology just takes it a step further.

QT/pro-trans: What are the most common misconceptions gender critical people have about things like being trans, gender identity, your goals or activism, etc? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think radical feminism is ever going to be attractive to trans people. It flies directly in the face of the idea that one can become a woman through playing out gender roles, or having a woman's brain, or "feeling" like a woman, or having a fetish for becoming a woman, or whatever other "female essence" people evoke to legitimise this wishful thinking. For women, the goal is to shed gender roles and all other nonsense surrounding their sex. If this happens, male trans people, by virtue of not being female, cannot in any way be considered women.

According to trans ideology and liberal feminism, rejecting gender roles is actually sexist because these things aren't actually bad, and actually we all have a gendersoul attracting us to our role and words don't mean a thing anyways etc. Liberal feminism is the perfect ally for trans people because, having concluded that rejecting and criticising femininity is "misogynistic", it sold feminine women the idea that the shackles of femininity and objectification aren't a problem since anyone can take them on. I feel like trans ideology cannot be attacked on its own, because it feeds off of all the flawed misogynistic ideas present in liberal feminism. Sadly the biggest critics of liberal feminism are either GC who've welcomed rape-culture-loving conservatives in with open arms, or trans-inclusive radical feminists who, despite it being at odds with the entire movement, claim that trans rights are consistent with feminism because "they just are, don't question it you transphobe".

Both: Are sexual stereotypes about men and women in the bedroom true? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

So, don't bother replying next time if derailing and shitty libfem arguments are the only thing you've got to offer? Do you seriously just expect to never go unchallenged regardless of what you say?

Both: Are sexual stereotypes about men and women in the bedroom true? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

Peaking didn't bring it up, though, I did.

I don't care who brought it up? I care about what was said. Whether you said it, or a snail on the street is 100% irrelevant to me.

I don't believe being penetrated is an indication of femininity.

Okay? Your previous comments directly tie these things to gender. Whether you personally believe something is irrelevant to me. I care about the statements that you have made and the fact that they rely on these gender norms. If you disagree, then word this disagreement. Avoiding this by derailing to who brought up what and making empty statements about what you feel is completely irrelevant to me and what I'm talking about.

maybe some of us do genuinely enjoy our vaginas being penetrated by penises.

And plenty of women like being whipped and getting titjobs. Your point? The "some women like it" bs is the most tired, brainless excuse, and it doesn't justify misogynistic sexual norms one bit. Some men like getting hit in the balls, how about we normalise that?

Both: Are sexual stereotypes about men and women in the bedroom true? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

The problem is the idea that being penetrated is in any way indicative of femininity, and worse yet, that anal penetration is in any way comparable to having a vagina. These ideas get used against women all the time, now to the point of arguing against out very existence.

I've never experienced or cared for penetration, because the anatomical centre of my arousal is on the outside, as it is in all people. A lot of lesbians are the same way because they have the luxury of not defining themselves (entirely) according to men's preferences. For straight women, this isn't really an option because they're made to believe penetration is obligatory and the only possible way for them to have sex, regardless of their difficulties, sexual enjoyment, misogynistic perceptions of the act, risks and even health complications.