Haunted by a 1984 quote and looking for perspectives from fellow women

slytherinxx · 2020-12-27T13:20:07+00:00

I think you might be giving a single quotation from a single author too much credit. Orwell is one person, and further he's writing from the perspective of a character, so what he's saying may only partially represent his personal feelings about the matter. Even if that completely represents his feelings, he's an author with a single perspective; it's not like this is a psychological study or something you could really use to help understand women in general. Add to that the fact that his perspective came from the middle of the last century, and that he's an outsider looking in and making an observation (a man can only ever make outside observations about women--he could never know what it is to be a woman). If it rings true in your life, that's worth examining on a personal level. Try to remember that it isn't representative of women as a whole. If you wanted it would be easy to find tons of quotes about women being strong and rational and men being the irrational instigators of ridiculous behavior.

As far as your emails containing SJW drama, remember that those are anecdotal pieces of evidence. SJWs tend to clump together, and they aren't representative of women as a group. They also create observable echo chambers and egg each other on. Anecdotal evidence from me is that I know more male SJWs than female SJWs. Neither of our friend groups represents humanity as a whole.

I have noticed one thing, and mind you that this is my personal perspective (though it has been informed by reading peer reviewed pieces and by reading the writings of well-known feminists.) What I've noticed is that, from a very early age, women are expected to put their needs and desires aside in order to preference men (and in some instances, adults in general). Take, for example, the fact that boys frequently have their behavior excused by the "boys will be boys" saying, while girls are often told that specific behaviors aren't "ladylike." When women grow up with a double standard that continuously tells us (from all sides--parents, teachers, media, friends, etc.) that our thoughts/feelings don't matter and that it's better if we just go along to get along (I'm overgeneralizing but bear with me) it can be easier for certain women to fall into the trap of swallowing dogma that's harmful to us, like patriarchal values and misogyny.

My suggestion to you is this: instead of looking for something inherent in women that causes them to behave in this manner you've observed, try expanding your view to see what systems of power or what overall messages these women may have received to cause them to think/behave that way. You might also benefit from looking up women who trailblazed and bucked the system (the suffragettes, female scientists, people like Ada Lovelace, Katherine Johnson, Hedy Lamar, I have a bunch more but this comment is getting very long) so you can form a broader vision of how women think and operate.

I think most of the women on this sub are examples of the fact that we don't want to blindly swallow dogma and adhere to policies that are harmful to us. Cheers!

slytherinxx · 2020-11-14T13:45:09+00:00

Why does it matter whether or not a neopenis looks and feels like a biological penis? According to queer theory, the presence or absence of sex organs isn't what makes someone a man or a woman. Why should trans men even need a neopenis, since QT now likes to argue that whatever parts you have are whatever you say they are?

slytherinxx · 2020-11-14T13:41:56+00:00

Men never experienced what it's like to be a woman in any point of their lives, women never experienced what it's like to be a man. How do you know what it feels like to be someone you don't?

YES!!!!

slytherinxx · 2020-11-14T13:36:58+00:00

5) Is it okay to invalidate someone's gender identity? Wouldn't invalidating someone's gender identity be lgbtphobic? If no, can you explain why?

I have nothing meaningful to add to what the wonderful people here have already said in response to this post (with a lot more patience than it perhaps deserves, because I find it hard to believe this post is in good faith when the sub rules clearly state that this is not a debate sub), but I would like to counter this question of yours with another question.

Why is it okay to invalidate women's lived experiences, our biological experiences? Historically women have been oppressed because of things like our periods and our ability to bear children, and we still are today. It had nothing to do with "identity" then and it has nothing to do with "identity" now. Women are a huge group with a vast array of personality differences, likes, dislikes, etc., and here you are shoehorning us into a "gender identity" riddled with stereotypes. What we have in common is our biology.

And before you come at me with "sex is on a spectrum, it's sCiEnCe," I want to give you a little lesson on the peer review process and scientific consensus. Opinion pieces in magazines are not peer reviewed. They may seem to be written based on current scientific findings, but the very fact that they are opinion means they have no basis in the scientific method. That being said, peer review is imperfect because it is done by humans, all of whom have biases and opinions. That's the reason the scientific community needs to come to a consensus on any given topic (which can only happen with extensive peer review of myriad studies, in order to remove the bias). Consensus indicates that most scientists who are subject-matter experts agree with a specific outcome/observation based on the science/research that has been conducted and presented. Take climate change: though there are a few (loud) dissenters, the scientific community has been at consensus (something like 97%, if memory serves) about anthropogenic climate change for years. By the way: the experience a scientist has with the subject is important in consensus. It doesn't matter much if a particle physicist disagrees with climate change. So it doesn't much matter if a psychologist disagrees with the concept of binary sex (because that psychologist was not trained in biology.)

Scientists are NOT at consensus with "sex is a spectrum." Plenty of scientists are trying to clarify this point of view and do not find that it has any scientific merit. While secondary sex characteristics are quite vast and varied, the human body is only capable of producing one of two gametes capable of creating a zygote. The presence of genetic disorders does not constitute a third sex, because these disorders do not produce a third gamete. The presence or absence of various secondary sex characteristics does not constitute a third sex because, again, these individuals do not produce a third gamete. The fact that some people are infertile again does not constitute a third sex, nor does it suddenly imply that they are "less of" a woman or a man. Their bodies are still blueprinted by genetics to produce one of two gametes, the fact that they cannot doesn't suddenly mean "sex is a spectrum," and I think it's cruel to insinuate that they aren't as "male" or as "female" as their fertile counterparts (i.e. that they fall somewhere on the middle of the spectrum) just because something went physiologically wonky with their reproduction.

Find me a peer reviewed paper (actually, I would like several, because sometimes duds make it past the peer review process and it's only when another group of scientists tries to replicate the results that people realize the first paper had no merit) showing evidence that there is a third HUMAN gamete capable of either being fertilized by sperm, or fertilizing an egg, and I will reconsider my position that sex is not a spectrum. (Some species actually do have more than two sexes. Look up slime molds.)

Finally, I want to state that I am not a biological essentialist. The human body is sexually dimorphic (male and female) but that does not mean that one sex is better than the other, or that either sex should behave in a certain way. Sex stereotypes (e.g. dresses are for women, men like cars, women are bad at math) have never made sense to me, because people are way more complicated than that. That being said, because women have faced oppression for so long, we deserve separate, safe spaces. Similarly, people with genetic disorders and fertility issues deserve our respect and have a right to privacy, I think it's time we stop dragging them into this debate as proof of false science, don't you?

slytherinxx · 2020-11-14T13:11:29+00:00

I’ve never seen anyone explain gender identity in a way that wasn’t tactfully dancing around saying “sex stereotypes.”

This exactly. My understanding of what makes me female is firmly based in my biology, which is the source of the sex-based oppression I have faced. I've never felt a "gender identity," and I'm willing to bet a lot of people currently neck-deep in queer theory also never felt a gender identity before the concept became popular ~5-10 years ago.

slytherinxx