R E S P E C T - find out what it means to me by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT
[–]ausernamee 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
There's respect like two equals in a workplace keeping uncomfortable slurs and sexual comments out of the workplace and treating each other like human beings (like, the share your toys kindergarten level of respect) and then there's respect like your dad pulls out his belt and demands you show respect. This person is clearly using the second definition.
This person has no concept of two people being equal to one another and their whole idea of being respected involves domination.
Under the "admiration" concept of respect, the only people who would feel respect for veiled threats would be fascists or sociopaths. What a fucking psycho.
Intersectionality - a useful or useless concept? by oatcake in GenderCritical
[–]ausernamee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
Because most people don't understand what intersectionality is and mistake it for the opression Olympics, whenever intersectionality is being discussed I think it's important to mention that intersectionality is the concept that because black women are at the bottom of the totem pole, a society that is equitable to black women will by definition be equitable to all, question where they got their notion of what intersectionality is, and scoff at them for their (racist) ignorance.
TERF glossary on "Rational" Wiki by Rage-Xion in GenderCritical
[–]ausernamee 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
One time I was reading their article on "mistaking the map for the terrain" and in like 2 clicks ended up on anti-terf stuff.
Have you ever read one of those online rants with starts off with some basic skeptical principles and then ends with "and because we can't trust authorities who tell obvious lies, there is no doubt that the world is being run by reptiles". Or that start with why you cant trust doctors because they don't really know the science, so, buy this snake oil. Like, they try to sell you on some wild claim, but when they deunked the main thinking they are debunking their claim as well. Like "your Christianity is a cult. And that's why you should join our coven."
It had that kind of feeling. Like, no, if the mainstream proof to trust official narratives isn't doubt free, and you're telling me to raise my standard of proof, then your off the wall rambling about how it really is is already ruled out when ruling out the official story. If a close look at the science is what tells me cure x is really just a pharmaceutical company scam, then you're going to need reliable science on your feel good power vitamin that proves it's even better. You can't just write off "medicine" as not being scientific but then your natural cure is equally non scientific. You just raised the standard of proof when you said we should be careful about checking the science of our prescriptions. Finding out adhd meds have been over prescribed or finding out about the placebo effect in no way means the substitute you're trying to sell me will work for the problem.
It was just that the very logical fallacy of mistaking the map for the terrain had been used in the argument they were making agaisnt terfs.
As a person who is both paranoid and tragically logical (from autism) I would see these sites (or think any book that wants to tell you about aliens. They start with an overview of skeptically based critical thinking to get you to disregard the official narrative, but then ask you to 100 percent set that scrutiny aside when they make their case) and they're all like "here is a guide to how to detect bullshit" that is totally legit. Then, they spin bullshit combined with human behavior into a conspiracy theory, and then try to sell you a bunch of extra bullshit as their explanation.
You JUST told me not to trust a doctor simply because he has a PhD (which is legit. A quack with a PhD is still a quack. We shouldn't automatically accept something on authority. If we can't understand the medicine science ourselves, we should at least make sure the expert we are listening to has a good reputation among other experts).
Then, they go from "here is how to recognize the logical fallacy of appealing to authority a d exactly why it is bullshit and some critical thinking strategies you can apply to judge the credibility of the person who is an authority is areas that you aren't educated enough to distisghing between the facts for yourself"
Directly to "this guy is the number one top expert in cryptozoology and we don't have any records but he says he worked for the govnement hunting bigfeet."
Being autstic and paranoid I would get hung up on these arguments until I realized some people are crazy, some people want to sell you something, and some people are crazy and want to sell you something (Alex Jones really hammered this home).
I still think rational wiki is a good resource for exercising your brain, but when I clicked like 2 or 3 links between mistaking the map for the territory to wind up on anti terf that persistently mistook the map for the territory I had that "why am I supposed to trust the authority of the alternative doctor when you just said trusting authority is bullshit to tell me not to trust the medical doctor? This is just circular shit to push me to your way of thinking, not an actual argument" moment.
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
Treating dysphoria with horomones is similar to treating other mental illnesses with psychiatric drugs.
For most mental illness, psychoanalysis provided legitimate relief from suffering.
These are the two options we have for treating dysphoria. It's not the best oprtion for most mentally ill people to alter their brain function and cross your fingers and check in with therapy. Psychoactive meds aren't curing anything either, they're just severing some connections hoping to snap you our of a pattern of behavior. Psychoanalysis would be the more gentle approach with less harm. But it's a lot cheaper for pills.
If trans people must be treated, I think the insurance companies are deciding that it's a lot cheaper for a quick fix surgery than for 5000 hours of psychotherapy
All: Disclosure and Consent by loveSloane in GCdebatesQT
[–]ausernamee 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
I'm a monosexual heterosexual trans man. That describes being attracted to amabs and doesn't imply anything about those amab's gender.
A trans man is a female. That's a lesbain relationship if you're female.
Straight would be when you're attrcated to cis men, trans women, and amab nonbinaries.
The Six Million Dollar Nebularomantic DemiMan by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT
[–]ausernamee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
I'm talking about being able to name feelings and tie meaning to them and interpret them in a neurotypical framework, not feeling feelings.
For example, i just watched a video with a girl who mistook her anxiety symptoms for arousal. She felt feelings, she was just unable to name which feeling it was or tell you what it meant in the context of the social situation. That's actually not that uncommon. Sometimes you think you're nervous, but it turns out your excited, or sometimes it goes the other way around.
Do you find "people who menstruate" or "birthing people" dehumanizing? by Rage-Xion in GenderCritical
when you make it an awkward point to highlight the humanity of autistic people we see it as dehumanizing. to insist on "person with autism" implies that there is something shameful about being defined as autistic.
All: What would it take for everyone to be friends again? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT
The trust wasn't just broken by the demands, but also by the fact that lying and gaslighting was used as a main way of getting people on their side.
In real life, none of the women I know supports trans ideology and none of them hate trans people. The typical perspective is that because we are sad about their suffering from dysphoria, we'll try to make them feel better by treating them as women. To trans people that's hate. Which, upon finding out that going out of your way to treat a dysphoric male in a way that will alleviate their dysphoria is engaging in bigotry because we are commuting thought crimes by recognizing them as male, can cause people who had previously, to their understanding, been supportive, to second guess what they're supporting.
Cis women want trans women to be safe and to have jobs and to have housing. Instead of accepting support for your right, it turns into bullying cis women who are allied in your human rights into thinking rightthink. You would percieve more women supporting your rights if you (collective trans community) were engaging with them about your actual rights instead of rights like sexual access and indecent exposure, which are not rights, but sex crimes in the context that they're being obtained though tricks and coercion.
[–]ausernamee 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
Outside of issues and laws, for me, (trans man) I've lost trust for the trans movement.
As an example of why, it is well known that any group of people defined by any neutral characteristic is going to have good people and shitty people. For a long time, feminists asked "ok, we are totally on board with your gender and we want to support your rights, but what are we going to do about the situation of a predatory intact trans woman who is more able to overpower us, rape us, impregnante us, and infect us with stds, and how are we going to gatekeep cis men from claiming trans identity.
For over a decade we have been lied to by trans women that neither of those things is an issue. We say "one single instance is too many" (such as at wi spa) and how can we ensure that this never happens. Instead of engaging with the fact that we are not willing to sacrafice one single girl or woman's safety, trans women, instead of addressing our concern, have told us "you are trying to say that all trans women are predators, but that none of that ever happens."
After over a decade of "we are willing to risk the safety and dignity of cis girls and women but lie and pretend that we aren't and gaslight you" how do you expect there to be any kind of trust between trans activists and radfems?
I'd start off trying to regain that trust by advocating for female spaces for cis women, nonbinaries, and trans men that are sex segregated, but i can't promise that trust would ever be regained. Many of us started as trans activists and were tricked by lies, so it will require a lot of repair to even begin to consider reconciliation.
My experience as a ftm trying to find community with trans mtfs is basically as follows
meet fellow excluded ostracised child on the playground
hit it off, declare friendship, share expereinces. finally feel like i'm understood and safe
get a beat down by the other child
be asked immedatly afterwards if our friendship is still good
I feel like y'all ignore that your strongest critics started on your side, and don't factor that into how betrayed we feel that we went from "women aren't perverts, so children don't have to worry about trans women since trans women are women" to "women who are worried about their kids being exposed to adult penis are perverted bigots."
It will take work within the trans community to change your image.
Most people who don't want to see penis were completely on board with respecting your gender identity. We were sympathetic to the threat of male spaces and were willing to be allies in the push for third, gender free spaces. But after we find out that wanting the very best for our trans loved ones while maintain our own boundaries is bigotry, that makes us wonder if things that we previously were on board with and had not hesitancy toward, such as that trans women are woman is just a simliar trick as when tras insisted that no trans woman ever would ever assault a child because it's outside of their gender and that no cis man ever would pretend to be trans because it's outside of his gender.
That's not the fault of trans individuals who are also lied to by trans thought leaders and don't have the facts themselves, but regardless of intent, the trust is gone for a lot of people.
Autstic people have written a lot about how person first langague is dehumanizing because it suggests that the person with x is a person inspite of x.
[–]ausernamee 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago* (0 children)
They're not saying "I can't tell if another person's feelings are romantic or if they're just platonic." They're saying "I can't tell if my feelings toward another person are romantic or just friend feelings." But that's not called nebularomanitc, it's called alexithymia. Research has shown 50-85 percent of autistic people having alexithymia. It's not a sexuality. That's like trying to say getting distracted during sex is a sexual orientation when you have out of control adhd. You can tell the alexithymia isn't a sexual orientation, because that same person has the same inability to understand/name emotions across the board, not just with romance. It has nothing to do with sex.
The same person who can't tell if they want to be friends or want to date can't tell if they enjoyed the first meeting at the knitting club or not. The fact that needing a million years to process every emotion you feel also applies to romantic and sexual feelings in the same way that it applies to all your feelings doesn't turn it into a sexual orientation.
Their sexual experience is bascially the same as everyone else's but with slower processing. The relationship is a pool. One person stick in their foot and then jumps in. Another person sticks in their foot and realizes it's too cold and says NOPE. Alexithymia would be you stick your foot in, hmm, you're not sure if it's too cold or not. Maybe you stick more limbs in and continue to consider it, maybe you you get it. After you're in, maybe you think you're gonna get out right away, but then you adjust and it's fine. Or maybe you thought it was ok, but it turns out it's too cold after all and you end up getting out despite at first not being sure and thinking you might stay in.
That might make you a bad partner for some people, and it might cause conflict with a partner who's a bad partner for you. But nothing about having it goes outside of regular courtship. To a certain extent, everyone needs to be won over. Someone with genius level emotional i.q. also doesn't decide on the first date every date "this is the man i'm marrying" or "i need to block this guy".
They are probably having a markedly different experience with engaging with their own emotions than a typical neurotypical person, but it's just not a dating or sexuality thing. Not knowing how you feel about someone is so much the norm that it's even sometimes used as a gender stereotype. When you see females stereotyped as not even knowing how to pick a boyfriend and you see men stereotyped as completely unaware of their feelings, how do you not see that this isn't exactly unique. It reminds me of demisexuals who also describe basic courtship and basic boundaries and basic communication and respect in a relationship as a special unique thing.
I don't get the need to flag that we have boundaries or that a kiss now doesn't mean you can take it for granted that i'm down to fuck as a special sexual orientation.
I wonder how this person would incorporate the fact that what they think is their sexuality is a clinical symptom of their brain wiring being outside of the norm into their identity.
Ok, now I'm imagining a neurodivergent person describing the thrusting motion of fucking as "stimming" and I'm giggling about it because that would obviously be pure nonsense. "You can tell i'm autistic because i like to rub on blankets and i like to rub on my necklace and i like to rub on cool glass and i like to rub on my genitals to the point of orgasm." No, one of those is just sex and nothing to do with autism.
It comes across as a little fetishizing of neurodivergent people to tie sexuality to autistic traits. "Oh, part of your coping mechanisms for your autism is you like to suck on things? Like what? Oh, you like to suck on ice cubes and always have candy on hand because the minty distracts you, and sometimes you suck on your necklace or chew the neck of your shirt or suck on your thumb like a 5 year old? oh yea, i remember thumb sucking, i can wrap my head around that's soothing for your autistic stress of the bright lights and loud noises. Wait, part of what you're attributing to your autism is your enjoyment of sucking dick? No, i'm pretty sure that now you're describing your autism fetish, not actual autism." i've seen these adult babies trying to play off their fetishes and immaturity as autism before. I can't say they are autistic or not, but autistic people can be have weird fetishes too.
Ok, now i see why people felt like this was pushing other's boundraries instead of reading it as a simple bad description of being ND. If you are in fact ND and you describe your neurodivergence in ways that could be confused for a non-nd person with a fetish, it's not an either or thing. Even if they are ND that's still kind of creepy becuase if they're not pretending to be nd to fetishize nd people then they're one of those nd people who don't understand boundaries enough that they make themselves out in ways that they seem like they have an nd fetish. My original inclination was to defend them with "alexithymia is a thing" but on second thought, this is pretty weird.
Vaccines/Pandemic q for qt and gc by ausernamee in GCdebatesQT
[–]ausernamee[S] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun - 2 years ago* (0 children)
Here are some of my further thoughts on the topic.
We have rules as a society that DO have reasons and make sense on the macro level and if you undesrstand the reasons, but can be misunderstood or abused on the mircro level. Two examples that i think make a lot of sense, are the dictate to respect your elders, and the dictate for men not to hit women. But, to a little boy surrounded by grown women and little girls who doesn't fully understand that this is training him not to use his extra strength he will have once he's a man, that sounds simply like a demand that girls get special treatment for no reason, which may seem especially unfair if his big sis is pushing him around. Likewise, respecting your elders is simply a caution that you don't have all the wisdom of older people and warning you (perhaps in vain) to maybe not be a terror around the house when puberty hits. Those elders are going to be dead some day and you don't want to lash out in anger at someone you love and then regret it. But a general demand to respect your elders, similar to respecting women, just seems really silly to the kid with an abusive parent, or even with just an aging out of touch parent. So now, a simple warning to young people that maturity has yet to come seems like it's part of a system of giving older people all the advantages. When your co-worker with seniority is getting paid more than you simply for being older, and your whole life you've been hyped up on respecting elders when it's been nothing but counter productive, it seems like the whole idea of respecting elders is bullshit.
Not much coherent to say, these are just some thoughts i had. to me it seems like despite best intentions, simply promulgating ideas might not have the impact that is being sought after.
And then, onto the power aspect of dictating ideas, beyond simple conversation or social memes. This may be completely irrelevant because literacy and communications have changed, and also i'm not that educated in anthropology and could probably make some more observations if i compared this with the modern situation with islam and collecting more facts on people who practice islam. But, from my pov more familiar with western history, the church is a well known example of intuitional power combined with ideology. When we look at church theology and then look at the lives of the lay person, it seems like fully understanding and agree with christian doctrine on the part of the lay person wasn't a necessary part of christian domination. people who had all the power, and many of whom legitimately believed souls were at stake, were cloistered away having debates among highly educated fellow theologians. with all of the power and all of the conviction, their ideas STILL did not disseminate beyond basic mantras of controlling behavior that were rebelled against.
As i said, I don't really have anywhere to go with this and maybe communications advances makes these observations irrelevant anyway. I assume that even the most ignorant christian farmer from hundreds of years ago would probably be a better theologian than the devout modern christian simply because christiany was the meme machine of the day, but i feel like a lot of it would still be on the level of "don't hit women, it's bad" as opposed to "here is a full analysis of how men use their strength to subjugate women and why you shouldn't"
I think if i understood more about how modern Muslims engage with their faith and how much of their behavior is custom and ritual vs how much is engagement with the religion itself could give me more things to think about, but i'm fairly ignorant about that culture. for example, how much of veiling is about law, how much of it is about culture and customs, how much of it is a symbolic expression of faith (and what drives that faith. The word itself or the word as disseminated via the cultural memes), or an expression of "this is what god wants" in the sense that god legit came and told you to do that shit, or an expression of "this is what god wants" because you have done all the research on god and combed though the information like a scholar and reasonably determined that's what god wants.
At a certain point, some people show up to church simply to pay lip service to god and their religion and their culture.
We can have a whole culture that tells us trans women are women while no one at any point believes there has been a material change and the majority of people want to keep sports sex segregated while the majority of those who are being inclusive are doing so out of a desire to include, not out of principles of women belong in women spaces.
At the same time we can have a whole culture that parrots back to use the exact mantras that women need economic opportunity , women need empowerment from the patriarchy, women need sexual autonomy and satisfaction, and then conclude with "sex work is empowering work and you can prove your masculinity by how many orgasms you forced out of your girlfriend"
In general (not sepecifically on this community) i feel like sometimes trans and gc people tend to talk past one another when they are actually in agreement simply to argue, and then, on the flipside, claim to agree when it's really more of an attempt of value-shifting. It's hard to imagine that on a larger scale mainstream scale, where the conversation consists of random people shouting into the wind rather than an attempt at respectful dialogue between individuals, that there would be any difference in how the message you are trying to popularize is engaged with.
So, in conclusion, sorry about the lack of conclusion and thank you for entertaining my musings.
I also feel like the time delay between people thinking of the new ideas and people hearing and responding to old ideas amplifies the perception of resistance and hostility to new ideas. After you've spent months going back and forth with other people arguing and refining the ideas, it gives you the perception that people known about the conversation when they are ignorant and are having a whole different conversation. As an example, if i, as a black person, am surrounded by black people and liberal white people and we all are fully aware about hair touching microagressions, assuming everyone knows about the microagression takes the microagression from micro to flat out aggression. Now, not only is the white person asking to touch my hair treating me like an exotic animal, but she's doing that shit after we have clearly deamnded she not do that and fully expalined why it's insulting. But not everyone has been following the microagression converation. Some people are still confused about what a microagression even is, let alone are on board with avoiding commiting them or having an awareness of what actions would be considered to be microagressions. Especailly with hostitility toward trans ideas, like, this nonbinary thing, i feel like a lot of what's seen as hate is gueinine people who can't keep up with the conversation because their only exposure to the conversation so far is memes, not debate.
Vaccines/Pandemic q for qt and gc
2 years ago by ausernamee to /s/GCdebatesQT from self.GCdebatesQT
QT/trans: What would be the worst things to happen if the concept of gender did not exist? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT
[–]ausernamee 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun - 2 years ago* (0 children)
you said "if you’re going to determine sex by the gametes an individual has at any time had, then those individuals must actually have had gametes at some point, or else they’d be classified as sexless"
that would be the equivalent of determining a female breast from lactation. it is not the lactation that makes the female breast female, and it is not the capacity for lactation (which can be affected by medical conditions) that determines the female breast to be female. we can tell the female breast is female, not by the lactation itself, but because it follows a design for lactation regadless of if there is a deformity that prevents lactation and regardless of it she never has a pregnancy and never lactates.
whether or not the gonads properly form/differentiate in the mesoderm does not change the fact that the sperm cell carries either an x or a y chromosome. can't remember exactly, but you mentioned something like not rmemebering middle school bio or not remembering freshman bio. i feel like having a better understanding of how reproduction works, in humans, in plants, in worms, in hermpahroditic animals, in bacteria, in the full range of organisms, will help you to better understand how it's not nearly as ambgious as you're making it out to be.
the zygote is male or female BEFORE the gonads form.
seeing as how we aren't discussing intersex conditions, maybe this will help it makes sense
a male is created when a sperm has a y chromosome (resulting in a male xy individual) and a female is created when the sperm has an x chromosome, (resulting in a much more genetically vigorous xx female).
it is not the production of the gametes itself that makes someone male or female, but the fact that they are in the category of people, who, if things develop without mutation of deformation, are engineered to develop those gametes.
all cases of interesex still fall within the binary but can not be determined on sight (hence the ambiguity) but CAN be determined with genetic testing.
basically, by your line of thinking, the fact that people with down syndrome face didn't develop a normal face someohow excludes them from the category of human because humans are supposed to have normal face. and then you're like "well, this kid with down syndrome doesn't even look human, how can i be sure they're not really a dog or a mongoose?" but, even if you don't see an obviously human face on the down syndrome person, genetic testing will make it clear that the person with down syndrome face is really a human too, despite the fact that it may not be aparently obvious to everyone. some people will think it's obvious that's a human while other people may be a little on the fence. but if you look at the genetics it will be very clear that this isn't a non-human, it is simply a human gone awry.
the same can be said about sex. just cos someone comes out with their junk strange or their biologies acting in a pathological way, whatever disoder or disease doesn't somehow take them out of their sex any more than down syndrome face takes someone out of being human.
there ARE intersex conditions where, despite the chromonsomal sex being xy they are functionally socially female as far as we are concerned on a social level. but slotting them into a gender when our society demands it does not change their sex. the idea that a male who develpoped as a female was raised as a female and that since gender is nothing but bullshit and socialization their gender identity therefore reflects the socialization of having an aparently female body. nothing about "we mistook these males for female, and also, even if we had known, they still would have been aparently female to all observers and therefore gendered as female" suggests permeable boundraies regarding sex.
intersex males raised as females DOES tell us that gender is bullshit and just an imposition on humans. it is a good argument for "well, why should my behaviors or mannerisms or gender expression be restricted in any way by my sex since we have clear evidence that gender is nothing but a social navigation and while there are def biological factors that impact your gender, the driving factor is not sex. xy males treated as females shows us that the social aspects of gender are not sex based, and, whatever brain development/hormones issues might play a role in gender, we can definitivly say "because your your sex, you must gender in accordance thusly" is a load of crap (meant to extract free labor from the lower classes and the female body)
none of the gender issues with intersex point to any confusion in sex however, simply gender. the diversity of intersex people and how itersex impacts a person's gender can tell us a lot about gender (basically that it's bullshit and socialization). but intersex people don't tell us jack shit that implies "we can not determine someone's sex." we easily recognize intersex people's sex in the lab. intersex people are a great argument for "your sex shouldn't have any bearing on the gendered ways you express yourself," but it is a terrible argument for "we just can't tell who's male sex and who's female sex" because the simple existence of intersex and our ability to determine their sex despite it being aparently ambiguous and despite it not aligning with gender tells us that sex is very very very very fucking easy to observe and not at all confusing.
you didn't bring up intersex people, but getting into chromosomes and gametes make me feel like i should point at that intersex people are proof that there ARE two sexes and that no matter what kind of ambiguity, that the ambiguity is surface level and that when you look beyond the surface the distinction between the male and female sex is as clear as night and day.
intersex males are male and intersex females are female. there is no middle ground. that some of them live opposite sex social roles in an argument for transgender, but it isn't an argument that sex is in humans ambiguous.
there are people who literally are born without assholes. we know they are "supposed" to have assholes from looking at all the humans and seeing where they went wrong in not developing an asshole (seriously, make sure your baby has an asshole before you take him home, because sometimes it's missed and then the baby dies). You wouldn't say "oh, i guess some humans don't have assholes" anymore than you would say "well, i guess some people of the female sex yeet."
a female or male who has a mutation or development problem to appear the opposite sex doesn't take them out of their sex category. a female who is so virilizaed that's she's got a beard and is hulking over everyone and that everyone assumed her 3 inch clit was a penis, and then she didn't menstruate because of test and lives her whole life thinking she's a man is still a female. a male who develops a tiny vagina and tits and doesn't have a dick is still a male.
i'm a ftm, and also am super virialized to the point of being mistaken for a man with no attempts at passing, being bigger than a man, having a man "personality" (which i admit is probably an interplay between genetics and socialization and not simply genetic) and displaying the index ring finger ratio of a ball buster. to me there's a huge difference between someone reading my gender and putting me in the "man" category (very affirming) and someone deciding that because my female body is masculinized that therefore it is a male body.
pre pubtery when i thought i was intersex, "you're tall, you're probably a boy" would come across as othering and telling me how i'm supposed to be. but even in the context of gender bullying, there would have been no offense taken because we know from mahoney that little boys can be seeming like little girls.
despite a very firmly rooted male gender idenitiy (i had this whole backstory where i assumed i was an intersex boy who'd been mutilated up until menstration started), when you get into the part where you're describing (non transitioned) masculine people of the female sex as if somehow their sex is ambitious, at that point you're insulting them on their biology. you want to tell me i'm a boy because of all the boy ways i be like, that's fine. i feel my gender is recognized. but when you start saying that what makes a female male is that she's man sized or that she's got a beard or that her clit is indistinguisbale from a penis, at that point i'm like, wait, you're not affirming my gender. you're just throwing freakishly mannish feamles who you don't know shit about their gender, under the bus. it's actually very insulting to masculine females to suggest that because they are masculinzized that that removes them from the caterogry of female.
edit: people with down syndrome face are discrimated to the point where people will try to stop a down syndrome marriage. legit, just slow people having a regular normal life, not talking about someone being preyed on, but 2 legit down sydrome people trying to be happy togther, will have normal people try to step in and control their life.
i do think there are biolgoical aspects that affect gendered behaior seperate from socialiaztion, but they are not neatly divided by sex. like i said about finger ratio, if you look at the finger ratio of someone like hiliary and see her acting like a dude, i do think there may be some genetic aspect of her being assetive and agressive, but since she's obviously female it's obvious that it's not sex that's controling that. likely some things we associate with sex, like homrone levels, which are shown to affect the digit ratio. a viralized female is still female tho
GC: How problematic is accepting a man as a woman or a woman as a man if they pass well enough? And what problems does that bring? by Tea_Or_Coffee in GCdebatesQT
[–]ausernamee 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun - 2 years ago* (0 children)
i can interpret "accept as a man or woman" in two ways. 1) accept that their sex has changed, which is a problem because it's a denial of facts, or 2) to treat as man or woman, which equates to asking for special treatment because as someone who is against sexism i make it a point to treat men and women as equal as possible as far as my unknown biases will allow.
separate from the "we're relabeling your orientation for you or you're transphobic" having this conversation with a friend brought up my biggest issues with trans theory.
at the point when the unreasonable demand to treat men and women differently was placed on me, i was 100 percent for twaw, couldn't give a shit about bathroom segregation assuming problems would be dealt with, didn't really engage in how rapey stealthing is because i'm attracted to semen ejaculators so if someone else decided it was their prerogative to stick their dick in random people they don't know the history about that's not really for me to criticize.
no problem with pronouns, off loaded some overly ambitious pants that were going to waste. just simple principles of being polite and respecting people with mental illness made most hypothetical online discussions about what pronoun irrelveant, because who wants to be an asshole.
so, bascially, my friend insisted that it was a problem that i did not see her "like a woman." this didn't come from any kind of rejecting her as a woman, but 100 percent on her part her trying to push gender ideology onto me. over the course of a tooth-pullingly painful conversation she made it clear that if i did not sort men and women by gender and conceive of them differently according to their gender and get a different gendered impression of each group that i was inherently transphobic.
i feel like "some people are males, and some are females. some people like to switch the social role to that of the other sex and approximate their sex. let's help them fit in, like, give them some awesome pants, because they obviously either don't have they best constitution to resist cis gender indoctrination or have sex dysphoria, both of which seem pretty deserving of sympathy." seems like i was going more than halfway when you factor in that the idea that men are men ways and women are women ways is just a method of capitalist control.
but then when she came at with me with the demand that i see her "as a woman" she was also making the demand that i see all females assumed cis as women, and i refuse to do that. to me seeing someone as a woman is just a bunch of nonsense that is layered on top of female bodies and that nonsense should be dispelled. unless she was literally asking me to forget that she was male.
i think it's kind of messed up to list basic facets of being respectful and then impose gender onto them.
to answer what you might not realize, no sex can not change. on the sex side, to see a trans woman as a cis woman is moronic nonsense because she is a trans woman. category 1) women who were born male. caterogry 2) women who were born female.
to ask is the category of women who were born male and the category of women who were born female the same category doesn't make sense as a question. the answer is there in the question. they are categorically different.
so i can only assume, that, she is not trying to convince me that her genotype switched.
so the only other option to accepting her as a woman, would be to have a gendered category of women to slot her into, and as much as i love her, i'm not doing that to other females. also, i'm trans and her concept of being accepted as a woman involved misgendering me and redefining my sexual orientation as well.
she serioulsy thought that i should have broad categories of gendered association for males and females simply so that i could slot her into the female one. that's really messed up. that's basically the opposite of everything every progressive person has ever fought for.
[–]ausernamee 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago* (0 children)
you might be interested in this preliminary research. they think there's stem cells in them there ovaries. there's one or two mammals i think they saw making new eggs spontaneously from ovary stem cells.
Another study, presented at a conference in 2016, raises the intriguing possibility that certain medications may be capable of stimulating the ovary to create new eggs. In this study, women who had been given a particular set of chemotherapy agents (known as ABVD) were found to have significantly more eggs in their ovaries than healthy women who hadn’t received these medications. Women who received a different set of chemotherapy agents, which is known to cause infertility, had far lower numbers of eggs. This strongly suggests that the adult human ovary is also capable of producing new eggs.
What Does This Mean For Women?
So far, this is only preliminary research. Although there is great promise for the future of fertility medicine, this research has not yet led to any treatments to help those struggling with infertility. In the future, researchers hope to produce treatments based on these discoveries. For example, medications based on those used in the ABVD chemotherapy regimen might be capable of increasing egg counts in women with low ovarian reserve, without producing too many side effects. We’re excited about the potential for new treatment methods.
maybe this study that might be about sticking some stem cells in the ovaries maybe shows new eggs in humans. i'm not sure what the verdict is yet, but there's new interesting info out there about women making eggs. i don't think there's any solid evidence yet, but as a non-medical person wouldn't understand it until it's common knowledge and not just preliminary stuff in jargon i don't know.
i signed up just to tell you about ovary stem cells since you seem interested in the gametes.