Explanation of non-binary that's not sexist? by bradjohnsonishere2 in GenderCritical

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

Basically a "gender" that exists inbetween "female" or "male", or is neither. We're still waiting for the elaboration of what gender actually is, but as soon as we do we'll let you know.

Fae is not happy. Fuck capitalism and people who won’t learn neo pronouns by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

[–]mambean 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Indigenous people have been stating for years now that two-spirit has nothing to do western gender ideology and was more akin to gender non-conformity. Genderists are guilty of cultural colonization here, especially the white ones with 1/12th native american (who ironically get most the say on the matter) who want to identify as genderfluid two-spirit omnisexual uwu. It's so gross.

Fae is not happy. Fuck capitalism and people who won’t learn neo pronouns by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

[–]mambean 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Neo-pronouns and neo-genders are bullshit concepts invented by (usually) straight people to feel special.

A clown world. by 1donteven in GenderCritical

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

Clown world being a racist phrase is a gray one - if you just mean the words on their own, of course it's not racist. If you mean the meme phrase that's been popularized on the internet - yes it is. It's a phrase that started on /pol/ and white supremacist circles from the black pill ideology - basically talking about how the jews run things and how the world is unchangeable and all you can do it watch as the world is one big jew circus. There's context behind it.

"Clown world" was a phrase used in the subculture from about 2015. Its users claim it simply means that the (Western) world is so "crazy" in its embrace of social justice politics (read: not racist) that the only people who could conceivably be running it are Jews clowns, hence "clown world". In reality, countries without closed borders and which don't allow for the ethnic cleansing or genocide of minorities are "clown countries" because they don't embrace the policies of the Third Reich. The phrase started being heavily promoted on The Right Stuff's podcast "The Daily Shoah" in 2017.[3]

The "Honkler" meme originated on 4chan board /pol/ in February 2019 in a thread titled "Operation Honk".[4] Referred to as Honk Honk or Honkler, it quickly gained popularity across the internet in far-right groups, where Honkler imagery portrays antisemitic, homophobic, transphobic, and racist tropes.[5]

Honkler is the main figure of the Clown World, though other alt-right imagery is also drawn over by clown features, including images of Adolf Hitler and shock imagery.

The alt-right even dress up as clowns for protests, e.g. several Proud Boys at Patriot Prayer's attempted anti-abortion rally in Albany, New York in May 2019.[6]

Intersectionalism is the worst thing to happen to feminism. by medium_tomato in GenderCritical

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

First off, intersectional feminism only includes women, so TIMs should and will never be a factor because they are men, even if they believe they are not.

I think you might be misunderstanding what intersectionality is (and actually also confusing it with libfem values, which imo can be separate). I'm a black woman, and a bisexual radical feminist, my feminism needs to speak to the unique issues I have with race and sexuality that would be different because I am a woman, things that a black bisexual man would not encounter. Let me give you an example of intersectional thinking in feminism:

Case A: During the suffragette era, black women were made to march at the back of protests because white suffragettes felt it would make their message harder to absorb to the public. There were even racist suffragettes like Elizabeth Cady Stanton who wanted white women to vote because black men's votes were being considered - and thus wanted to strengthen the white vote and race. This is an example of race-exclusionary feminism. Thankfully we also had race inclusionary feminists like Sylvia Pankhurst.

Case B: During the rise of radical feminism, many radical femininists were still sadly homophobic - sidelining lesbian and bisexual women from the movement. The movement was failing to acknowledge the sexism of "stereotyping mannish man-hating lesbians" and distanced themselves from lesbians, they also had issues with addressing the other sexuality specific forms of misogyny such as corrective rape. A movement called The Lavender Menace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_Menace rose to confront this - they were very influential.

Case C: When it comes to gender stereotypes and the unique face of oppression each woman faces, sometimes race can alter how a woman is viewed. White women are stereotyped as chatty, feminine, demure, feminine. Black women are stereotyped as masculine, loud, aggressive, sexual. Asian women are stereotyped to be submissive, serving, quiet, exotic etc. These are all sexist stereotypes, and affect the groups differently.

Feminism gets called "white" when it only really tailors to the needs of white women. When white feminists banded up with women of color sometimes they would mess up - when challenging stereotypes that applied to them they would assume (often by ignorance) that what works for them must also work for others. For example, when white feminist or even black male authors made "positive" black female characters who were strong, independent, a bit aggressive/assertive, or sexual (things that white women fought to be seen as) - they did not realize they were furthering damage by solidifying a black stereotype that was harming black women from being seen as multi-faceted and even vulnerable human beings and aiding in their dehumanisation.

A lot of black women were attempting to find other modes of expressions where they could be seen as more rounded individuals, emotional, even feminine or demure if they wanted. A lot of them struggle with being seen as sex objects not worthy of a serious romantic relationship, a lot felt that even childhood and womanhood was taken from them very early on. The unique ways that colorism affected women more than men, etc. White feminists can not relate to such matters, thus a space needed to be made to talk about it.

Black women often felt that neither black men or white women understood that they felt confined to a small box of expressions - where white feminists embraced both masculinity and femininity in the cultural revolution, black women often felt they were stuck in the black strong female stereotype role which entrapped them in an epidemic of mental health issues. A lot of women of color in general felt they had to choose between their racial identity vs their womanhood which caused a lot of issues.

In short, intersectionality isn't, and shouldn't be (since there is a general cultural confusion even from intersectionalists) about calling this person a Karen, or culture wars. It's about acknowledging our differences, knowing how sexism has many forms based on culture and identity and acting on them. I know there's a lot of BS going around with white libfems calling other people "white" as an insult even with matters that don't even have to do with race, but that's just libfems being stupid with their identity politics bastardization. The concept of intersectionality is a good and positive one that all feminists should adopt and I am sorry they ruined the idea of it for you.

The trans community is missing the point. We don't hate them. We would absolutely be on their side if they would be rational and respect us by [deleted] in GenderCritical

[–]mambean 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well there's a reason why that won't happen.

  • Male entitlement.
  • Trans "women" who go on sports teams do so because they could never compete with men, not being on a woman's sports team completely defeats the point and the thrill for them.
  • Being a trans woman is either AGP or self-hatred of being male, so they never want to be called male, that would be defeating the point.
  • Hormone blocking children is a projected wish fulfillment of older trans to make more passing youth regardless of the negative side effects (or the fact that with most young people grow out of it), they won't ever stop trying to promote it to young people.
  • Gender criticals are more threatening to them than the men that actually wish to go out and kill them or even anti-trans right wing peeps who are just scared of men in dresses due to conservative politics. That's because GCs might actually present a progressive view that makes their ideology look contradictory or wrong. You need to misrepresent a gender critical person's points or smear it, or outsiders might find them reasonable.
  • TRAs know that the policies they push to lawmakers does put women in danger to the point that trolls like J. Yaniv can make a ton of money of off it. They know even if Yaniv was a "odd one out" they know the problems and loopholes exist.
  • They are aware that putting AGP fetish men under the trans umbrella to bolster their numbers for "inclusive" means women will have to let them into the bathrooms. They've all seen /r/itsafetish, but cognitive dissonance and denial (along with apathy) allows them to block this out.

Not only that, many trans people feel dysphoric and start to "doubt" themselves after viewing GC subs and they take this shaky view of their own identity out on us. Trying to smear us as "reactionaries" despite this sub being predominantly left wing, cherrypicking the odd right wing anti-trans commentator and labeling them a gender critical "feminist", or taking stuff out of context is all they have.

The creepy GenderCynical dudes are on saidit now... by [deleted] in GenderCritical

[–]mambean 44 insightful - 4 fun44 insightful - 3 fun45 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I was wondering how long it'd take for them to get here. They thought the community would die as soon as reddit did their deeds for them - nope! /s/gendercritical is as active (if not more) than the /r/gendercritical sub. Even better is less of the need for self-censorship.

Thanks guys!

The Peakening ™ - Part 1: The Bad Science on Transgender Issues by mambean in GenderCritical

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

snub-nosedmonkey, you misunderstood what the article is claiming. Let me paraphrase:

For example, it was long thought that brain size determined intelligence or competency in certain skills - women's brains (or certain parts thereof) are often smaller than a man's, thus this "shows she is competent in women's things but not in "man's things"." In more modern studies this has been debunked as brain size is not strictly relegated to sex (just like how many men are tall, but not all of them) and that size of the brain does not affect some's intelligence.

So this paragraph here does not deny that the average brain of a man and a woman is different, it instead challenges the idea that brains can be gendered. To reduce confusion here, there is no proven part of your brain that makes you feel "female" and no part of your brain that makes you feel "male". If you read the articles linked in the original post, it also shows that your life experiences (keeping in mind that both men and women often live lives relegated to their gender roles) and what you use your brain for can increase the size of that area of the brain as well as the connections.

Currently there is no solid study that actually proves that a brain sex can be proven, at most only minimal differences have been found and no individually fully conforms to either. A lot of brain studies you'll find are extension or part of "pop science" and research cherry picking, when done with a large sample size like this study here (6,000 people), the issues become apparent with the claim: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029185544.htm

"Many people believe there is such a thing as a 'male brain' and a 'female brain,'" Dr. Eliot said. "But when you look beyond the popularized studies -- at collections of all the data -- you often find that the differences are minimal."

Meta-analyses by other investigators have also disproved other purported sex differences in the brain, Dr. Eliot noted. There is no difference in the size of the corpus callosum, white matter that allows the two sides of the brain to communicate, nor do men and women differ in the way their left and right hemispheres process language.

It's not a good principle to bring the sex differences in primates and other animals because human beings do not grow up and act like other animals - some animals have large brain differences and more instinct reliant, others aren't as much. If we want to study human brains it has to be human studies.

Male and female hormones and their production as you mentioned in your comment here - is something complete separate and are actually produced by other organs in your body (sex) or hormone supplements, your brain is affected by said hormones indeed but not the producer of them.

/r/itsafetish backup from reddit by mambean in itsafetish

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

Click on "all", it will show all posts.

The Peakening ™ - Read this if you are new to Gender Critical (GC) Feminism by mambean in GenderCritical

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

I'll add that, do you have any sources perchance I can add this with?

Pissed off people are tweeting "Reddit brought banfemalehatesubs back" by [deleted] in GenderCritical

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

It's less about them attacking us or even reddit itself, it's about ensuring that we give them hell about it. Why should we be compliant and leave without challenge? They should actually see this action they've made as a huge inconvenience, leaving without much incident actually gives the bravery to other platforms to do the same.

I've used adblock from day one - which is a passive fight necessary for all these corporate platforms. Don't give them a penny.

Self ID'ing - and a few thought questions on it by mambean in GenderCritical

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

trans still means having dysphoria

Actually in many circles now, stating this would get one called a transmedicalist or a tucute which is bad enough to get people cancelled now as "gatekeepers". The TRA updated the definition of trans to mean "anyone who identifies as a man or woman" regardless of dysphoria or not. You don't need dysphoria, or surgery to be trans.

Now in the context of same sex attraction, at some point we called it same-sex attraction because it was just that, but now I find a lot of people are doing what the people (in my examples) are doing right now, which kind of confirms (for me, anyway) that attraction is sex based, not someone's self identified gender.

Pissed off people are tweeting "Reddit brought banfemalehatesubs back" by [deleted] in GenderCritical

[–]mambean 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my opinion it's less about liking reddit as a platform but rather the issue with reddit being a highly visited platform. More visits = more exposure to potential new GCs. The reason TRAs mass reported and got reddit into doing this is to minimize our influence (and attempt to dampen the movement's momentum). This is an effective strategy. Goes a bit like:

  1. Remove GC from one of the world's most visited social hubs and ensure all dissent is muffled.
  2. Use that social hub as a resource to promote and use propaganda now that actual challengers and sources of different information are removed.
  3. Rinse and repeat.

Right now they are also pushing for twitter, facebook and tumblr to do the same. They'd rather have us relegated to other websites where we can stay away from the people they wish to influence and ensure no one rocks the boat in mainstream spaces. They are putting a pillow on movements that have historically been known to refute or expose things TRAs put out.

What I'm saying is that it's less about liking reddit, and more about ensuring that does not happen.

Bring back neovaginadisasters by [deleted] in GenderCritical

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

Reddit technically has one unintentional sub for this called /r/manmadepussy/.

I'm still in support of bringing it back.

The Peakening ™ - Read this if you are new to Gender Critical (GC) Feminism by mambean in GenderCritical

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

If anyone wants new definitions added or to add to the peakening, just use this comment section.

The Peakening ™ - Part 1: The Bad Science on Transgender Issues by mambean in GenderCritical

[–]mambean[S] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just letting everyone know that the series of posts are a work in progress, if you want more added, let me know in the comment section.