Should GC feminists stop associating with conservatives on topics in which they’re interests are aligned?

strictly · 2024-04-07T05:44:42+00:00

When there are two options where one of them openly wants to create antifeminist/homophobic laws I take my chances with the option that isn’t regardless which option is labeled “woke”. Someone who openly wants to do bad things can have a hidden agenda of doing even worse things than they publicly admit so there is no reason to believe that voting on an openly bad position would be any safer regarding hidden agendas.

strictly · 2023-03-13T23:14:29+00:00

So do you think it’s possible to work with conservative politicians in one area without increasing their overall electability?

In some places being pro choice, pro same-sex marriage, pro democracy could be a conservative position, conservative fully depends on what what kind of values they want want to conserve, it’s a relative word. I think supporting values you agree with tend to increase the overall electability of these values, and I care about the actual values, not the label. If the so called "good guys" have homophobic values I can't vote on it will hopefully motivate them to become less homophobic in the future.

strictly · 2023-03-13T22:17:37+00:00

Pronouns are not based on biology.

You wouldn’t be here complaining about us basing pronouns on biology if we were not doing that.

Yet when people use "she" for me they are validating my identity.

So it validates your identity that we see you as being of the same sex as Buck Angel and Elliot Page? Why complain then?

Even if you don't believe in this language you can still return the same respect that Buck gives to you. I don't know if Buck can be considered GC but he holds GC beliefs.

If Buck is GC then Buck knows why we find it morally wrong to misgender men in masse with false gender identities just to make some man-identifying females feel better. Respect can’t be given on the expense of disrespecting others. Pronouns isn’t based on preferences for anyone so Buck is getting the same respect here as everyone else. And Buck is GC then Buck is not going to feel hurt by sex-based pronouns either as Buck would know it’s impersonal and that it says nothing about Buck’s gender feelings.

Buck is a man. He has a beard, deep voice and male levels of testosterone.

Women can have beards, deep voices and high levels of testosterone (especially if they are taking external testosterone).

Using preferred pronouns is absolutely a neutral and respectful act.

Had all non-transitioning males said they rather wanted to be called “zi” or always picked a different pronoun then females who want to be men, do you think they would have been called transphobic by transactivists? I think they would, which means trans activists are actually only for preferred pronouns for trans people but against the same freedom for non-trans people, which is worse than being against preferred pronouns for everyone.

strictly · 2023-03-13T20:40:10+00:00

Buck has never threatened any GC people, or feminists in general, or women in general.

And I give Buck the same respect as any other AFAB person, no more and no less.

Yet I see often in GC spaces Buck is often referred to as "she" when he stated his pronouns are he/him.

Pronouns aren't based on preferences for anyone, making an exception for Buck would be giving Buck preferential treatment.

What’s so hard about using his pronouns?

It's not hard to call AFAB people she.

strictly · 2022-05-23T15:56:30+00:00

Letters form words and words have mean meanings.

Letters other people speak refer to the meaning the speaker refers to, not the meaning you want the letters to have as you are not the speaker, thus not the one referring to something.

That is that the term "woman" refers to.

That’s the term you refer to when you speak the letters but you are not all people. A homonym is term that is spelled and/or pronounced as another term but differs in meaning. Therefor those letters don’t form one single term, it would form as many homonym terms as the different meanings people refer to when speaking those letters, which would be at least one term for you and a completely other term for me. When it’s you speaking the letters you can refer to gender identity but it’s morally wrong to pretend all other people speaking the letters would be referring to the same term as you when you know for a fact they don’t, that’s putting words into the mouths of others, aka lying.

So if I say someone is a “woman”, how should that be interpreted by you without using the letters “woman”?

strictly · 2022-05-23T01:10:54+00:00

If someone doesn't have a gender identity than they are agender which is part of non-binary.

To you, yes, a great many would probably meet your definition of agender/nonbinary.

I only call them women if they consider themselves women.

Which is still misgendering if you conflate letters with meanings, which is what you have done in the past.

If they consider themselves something other than woman I dont use that term for them.

Translated to your language that would someone who doesn’t consider themselves having your gender identity. To you, a woman is specific gender identity, so only those who think of themselves as having that gender identity can be fairly portrayed as having this gender identity, letters used doesn’t matter. It’s the same way a person speaking Polish can say they brush their teeth with “pasta” and it would still erroneous to portray them as brushing their teeth with pasta instead of toothpaste as “pasta” is the Polish word for toothpaste. I don’t want you give you a hard time here, but so we know if we are on the same page, do you agree that letters and meanings are two different things?

strictly · 2022-05-22T17:29:46+00:00

By "cis women" I meant people who were born female and still consider themselves women/girls and don't take T to appear masculine.

Here you are making the error of conflating letters with meaning again. It’s impossible for you to know if someone considers themselves “woman” in your language without first comparing your meaning of the letters “woman” with their meaning of the letters “woman” and seeing these two meanings align. Many of those you wrongly assign with your gender identity are just people who are aware of being AFAB in your language which people on r/ftm are also aware of. As you claim to be against misgendering I would assume you are aware of the incongruity/pain you cause these biological females by assigning them a gender identity they don't have. According to trans activists not even evil people deserve being misgendered, if you agree with that sentiment disagreeing with the meaning attached to letters shouldn’t be enough cause to go ahead and misgender someone with a false gender identity.

don't take T to appear masculine

Elliot Page called themselves a woman before transitioning, was Elliot Page a “cis woman” to you before going on T? If they were a “cis woman” just like how you identify as, why would a “cis woman” choose to transition? And if they were not a “cis woman”, evidently neither the lack of taking testosterone (as Elliot Page wasn’t always taking T) nor calling yourself the letters “woman” is enough to make anyone a “cis woman” in your language.

Since the term "women" refers refers to both cis and trans women

In your language the letters “woman” would only refer to people who share your gender identity. You misgendering people as sharing your gender identity when they don’t doesn’t change that many of the biological females you call “women” actually aren’t “women” in your language, they are just being misgendered as such by you.

strictly · 2022-05-21T18:56:59+00:00

What about cis women who were raped by other cis women?

What are you talking about, biological females, people with a specific gender identity, or the intersection of biological females with a specific gender identity? As gender identities are invisible people with a specific gender identity who were raped by other people with that specific gender identity would most the time not know that their rapist had that specific gender identity and the gender identity wouldn't be a trigger except for the rare cases that the rapist would have informed the victim about their gender identity.

If you are merely talking biological females who were raped by other biological females, they should be not forced to interact with biological females while getting the treatment either as the healing of the victim should be prioritized. Had I worked at such a place I wouldn’t want to force my treatment upon someone who would be re-traumatized by interacting with me, that would against the goal of what I would be working for.

strictly · 2022-05-17T02:12:04+00:00

What is wrong with trans people working in sexual violence prevention?

Nothing. What is wrong is if trans people want to work in sexual violence prevention in a way that hinders the goal of sexual violence prevention. Similar to firefighter who causes more fires than they extinguish that would be a liability, not an asset. So I’m not against trans people working in sexual violence prevention with victims who are comfortable with them. I am however against trans people working in sexual violence prevention with victims who are uncomfortable with them (due to biological sex or whatever) thus alienating traumatized victims from getting help. Being forced to interact with people of the same biological sex the victim was victimized by is a common enough trigger that it should be something traumatized victims should be allowed to opt out off. We don’t want situations where traumatized victims back out from getting help because they are scared of the one supposed to give them the treatment and not allowed to receive treatment from anyone else.

strictly · 2022-05-17T00:30:44+00:00

I haven't read FDS, only heard of it, so I don't know the exact content of it. I'm generally against censuring even for groups I disagree with though as I generally agree with the concept of having a marketplace of ideas.

strictly · 2022-05-17T00:07:43+00:00

I sometimes find it funny when for example American liberals vilify conservatives in more liberal countries as these conservatives might be more liberal than the American liberals criticizing them, conservative is a relative term. I also see a difference between collaboration in single issues and putting a group into power. If I was a politician I would for example have no problem voting against males participating in female sports and “help” people I otherwise disagree with outvoting the other side in this single issue, but I wouldn’t put my vote on a party I overall disagree with just because I agree with them on some trans related issues.

strictly · 2022-05-16T23:07:14+00:00

Other GC posters, how do you feel about it?

I don't think fitness for parenthood should be determined by trans status, people should be treated as individuals.

strictly · 2022-05-16T22:08:37+00:00

Long time no see.

You may not "identify" as a woman but you consider yourself a woman, if that's the language you want to use.

This is disingenuous and also false in your language.

A couple of Germans in Iceland ask their native German translator who is fluent in Icelandic to ask an Icelandic man in the market what he is selling. The Icelandic man answers “kind”, which is the Icelandic word for sheep, and the translator repeats “kind” to the Germans, which is the German word for child, and tells them to alert the police of child trafficking. The translator knows the Icelandic man isn’t identifying as selling a child (referring to selling sheep, not a child) but as the Icelander considers himself selling “kind” the translator thinks if that is the language the Icelander wants to use then he as German will treat the Icelander accordingly.

Is the translator above fair? To a German, in your eyes, should the Icelander be viewed as selling “kind”, the verbatim letters used by the Icelander which happens to be the German word for child, or as selling “schaf”, the German word for sheep which was what the Icelander actually meant?

Even within the same language meanings and letters are separate things. In English “gay” can mean being happily excited, “gay” can also mean being homosexual. If you know Peter is a straight man who has an old fashioned speaking pattern who says he is gay when he is excited and Sarah confesses to you she’s thinking of asking him out, would it be fair to tell Sarah she shouldn’t as Peter has admitted being gay to you? No, as Peter was communicating he was excited while you would be trying to communicate to Sarah that he is homosexual which is false.

What does GC refer to with “woman”? Translated to your terminology it’s an adult AFAB. What do you refer to with “woman”? An adult who shares your gender identity. Its false to portray someone as considering themselves sharing your gender identity when the person merely considers themselves AFAB in your terminology. Being aware of being AFAB is not the same thing as sharing your gender identity which the subreddit ftm on reddit is an example of as it’s full of people who are aware they are AFAB despite not sharing your gender identity. You claim to be against misgendering yet you keep insisting people share your gender identity even after they tell you they don’t for having used letters that has a gendered meaning to you but not to them. That would be similar to me insisting a straight Lesbos resident calling herself a lesbian is lowkey admitting being into woman because lesbian means something else to me than to her.

You are the only QT person here invested in the debate and I always appreciated the fact you take the time. Your tendency for the logical error explained above always annoyed me though. I hope this explanation makes sense to you but feel free ask if something is unclear, similarly feel free to tell me if you disagree with the distinction between letters and meanings and we can have a conversation about it.

strictly · 2021-10-14T23:52:33+00:00

Agender means being neither a man or a woman.

Agender means not having gender identity, that's the definition.

You can't be agender and be a woman at the same time.

Agender people can’t be women to you you as you have genderfied that word into gender identitiy, making it misgendering if you assign an agender person with that gender identity. You could have chosen not genderfy woman though and let it stay about biology.

You are welcome to call yourself agender

I meet the definition, many people do.

don't say you're oppressed because you're a woman

I lack gender identity but I still share adult human female biology with Elliot Page, thus like Elliot Page I can face sexism because of my biology, and woman is the word for adult humans with a biology like me and Elliot Page.

I don't agree with everything Everyday Feminism writes but they have excellent articles about racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism or any other type of oppression.

They paid a homophobe to tell homosexuals that we need overcome our sexuality, they haven’t shown any regret about it.

Cool, but if the transgender movement is so harmful to women then why are women more likely to support it?

If so few women find women-identifying males harmful in female sports why do women who want to ban women-identifying males from female sport outnumber the women against the ban?

And don't tell me women are socialized to be nice and kind and sweet. Most women are capable of critical and rational thinking and not everything we support is out of emotion.

Why don't you tell why you think you are more likely than a man to be against the ban?

Most of the trans community does not define sex by biology.

If trans people and trans activists have genderfied the words for sex too it means they engage in misgendering when they call people male and female too, which is morally wrong as people shouldn’t be misgendered just for having a sex, aka a biology they had no say in.

strictly · 2021-10-10T13:08:54+00:00

Agender is a gender identity

The definition of agender is not having a gender identity. Go to the agender subreddit and see how much they like being misgendered by you.

I never misgender anyone.

Insisting the all people without gender identities have one is misgendering, which you have done multiple times in this thread alone.

If someone says they're a woman they're a woman.

Is their definition of woman adult human of the female reproductive sex? That’s not a gender identity. Is your definition of woman adult human of the female reproductive sex? We already know it isn’t. Therefore you should use your word for adult human of the female reproductive sex when referring to them, not your word for a gender identity. So yeah, you are are misgendering them by referring to a gender identity when they referred to biology.

If someone's gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth, they are by definition cisgender.

You insist those without matching gender identities have one. People don’t like being lied about.

Most people are cis, even those who don't like the term cis.

A cisgendered person wouldn’t feel insulted when they are affirmed in their so called gender identity. You say you are cis, is feeling incongruent and lied about typical to you when you are called cis? If that’s the normal “cisgender” way of feeling I don’t see how you can believe in the existence of transgender people at all as they would just be regular cis people who just happen to dislike their cisgender gender identity to you.

Everyday Feminism was founded by an Asian cis woman named Sandra Kim.

Everyday Feminism supported the video where Riley J. Dennis shamed homosexuals for their sexual orientation so I don't care if that homophobic organization disagrees with me.

My point is regarding transgender stuff, men are more likely to be on your side than women.

I don’t adopt views because of the sex distribution of the views so I couldn’t care less if men are more likely to agree with me.

They are not female and female refers to anyone who consistently identify as female.

That is you genderfying a reproductive sex which is morally wrong, people shouldn’t be assigned with gender identities by you just for being born with a certain body.

The point is we are trying to de-sex periods if that's the term you want to use. We are saying in humans, periods ≠ female.

Periods are sexed, only one sex is physically capable of having periods, that's biology.

Men and enbies who get periods are not female. Using the terms "women" and "female" don't include them.

It’s physically impossible for people without a female biology to get periods, so yes, female include all people who menstruate. Gender identity never excludes anyone from being female as female is a biologic sex and female biology doesn’t prevent man- or nonbinary identities from forming, which trans people themselves are proof of.

Everyone has a gender identity. Anyone who presents outwardly as female experiences female oppression, regardless of birth sex.

Having a female body is neither gender identity nor a presentation, none of us got a say in our biological sex. You obviously don’t respect people without gender identities as you insist on misgendering us so I don't get why you expect us to more empathy for people with gender identities than you have for us. You evidently don’t think it’s a big deal to make people feel wrong and incogruent by misgendering them as long as that person lacks a gender identity. Personally I wouldn’t even have been against affirming trans people had the wanted affirmations not relied on everyone without a gender identity being msisgendered, but expecting us to to be okay with being constantly misgendered in the name of making trans people feel better is unacceptable.

strictly · 2021-10-08T16:39:22+00:00

Everyone has a gender identity and all of us are either cis or trans.

We don't, you are not all people, it's not up to you to gender others against their will and dictate what inside their mind when you only have access to your own mind . I also thought transactivists like you usually claim to support agender and nonbinary people, you don't then, you will still go ahead and misgender them with false gender identities? If you don't have empathy for those without gender identities, how can you expect us to have empathy for those who have?

There are also many cis women who do not find gender identity/ trans women alienating

Only those with cisgender gender identities find it not alienating, as they have a gender identity like you, but many of us are not cisgendered and don't have gender identities. I don’t care if you put yourself in gender box, your mind, your choice, but you have no right decide for other people, who don't even share you cisgender gender identity, that they must be okay with being put in a gender box.

According to a PPRI study, 51% of men support requiring transgender individuals to use bathrooms corresponding to their assigned sex at birth, compared to 40% of women.

40% against is big number.

According to a poll, 59% of men support banning trans women in women's sports compared tp 46% of women. 29% of men oppose banning trans women in women's sports compared to 34% of women.

More people in both sexes supported the ban than opposed, not surprising.

They aren't females, but they menstruate and have PCOS. This is why we use inclusive language, to separate sex/gender from these things.

Had they not been of the female reproductive sex it would have been physically impossible which means they are of the female reproductive sex. Sex refers to sex, not gender: As you say yourself, sex and gender should never be conflated so when I use words for the two sexes I indeed refer to sex, not gender anything.

f we would use gender-neutral language, we would use the term "menstrual products" and not "female products."

Female is a sex, not gender so it’s always gender-neutral, unless you are genderist who has genderfied the word, which is morally wrong as you by that action genderfy the unwilling.

Having a vagina doesn't necessarily make you a woman. That's the point. It only means you have a vagina.

Woman just means you are an adult human of the female reproductive sex so any adult human of the female reproductive sex is a woman as that is the only thing it refers to. If it means anything else to you then you are genderist who has genderfied the word, which is morally wrong as you by that action genderfy the unwilling.

This is exactly why we use inclusive language.

Woman is inclusive to all adult humans of the female reproductive sex, unless you are a genderist who has genderfied the word, which is morally wrong as you by that action genderfy the unwilling.

Everyone has a gender identity.

No, they don’t. If you want other people to take your word for it when you say you have a gender identity then you should give other people the same respect when they say they lack one.

If someone is born female and identifies as a woman, they are a cis woman. Same with cis men.

Woman is not an identity to us, it’s simply being an adult human of the female reproductive sex, something none of us had any say in. If your don’t understand what we mean with woman translate it to “adult human AFAB” in your mind as that is the transactivist way of saying the same thing. You don’t call man-identifying females cisgender just for knowing they are “AFAB” so you shouldn’t do that others either. Knowing biology is not an identity.

When I talk about women's struggles, I include every woman who experiences that struggle.

What is a woman to you? A gender identity? Then it’s absolutely disrespectful of you to include anyone without a gender identity as that is msigendering. But if you exclude everyone without a gender identity you will have excluded people who have faced what we traditionally mean with women’s struggles, so your definition of women’s struggles would be different. It would refer to struggles some people face for having a certain gender identity. I don’t have a gender identity so I don’t know if people with gender identities, like you, tend to face certain issues when they come out as having a gender identity. Either way, if you think those with gender identities need to organize I don’t mind that, but it shouldn’t include anyone without a gender identity. Then we can have a different sex based organization for struggles we face for being of the female reproductive sex.

strictly · 2021-10-07T21:35:57+00:00

This is precisely the reason we use terms like "cis" and "trans".

Many women and men are neither cisgender or transgender, they just don’t have gender identities. Your solution would misgender them with false cisgender gender identities by default which should be unacceptable for someone who claims to be against msigendering.

When differences are relevant to a discussion, we use the adjectives "cis" and "trans."

There exists no reason to group biological females who aren’t taking hormones with biological males who are taking hormones, different sex, and the latter group also has a gender identity which many of the former group find unrelatable and alienating.

In that case we use the phrase "assigned fe/male at birth." But we don't believe biology is relevant most of the time.

You might not find biology relevant in many cases but its relevance is still much greater than gender identity which has a relevance on par of a zodiac sign, only relevant to those specifically into it.

On r/FTM there are posts by people who claim they can't access information or services related to periods, PCOS, etc. because most of the information is written for women and they are not women. Here are some excerpts from this thread

Had they not been female it would have been psychically impossible for them to menstruate and have PCOS. This is a typical case where biology is more relevant than gender identity.

researching it was exhausting with how much everything was gendered,

I agree that forced gendering is a horrible thing and that is why I strongly disagree with the transactivist goal of genderfying language. I bet many of the people transactivists msigender with cisgender gender identities also dislike find the gendering of female products.

If this was made to purchase by “people with vaginas” it wouldn’t happen.

We would avoid this by be keeping the word woman sexed instead of genderfying it to gender identity, had the pharmacist not genderfied the word woman then this probably wouldn’t have happened. This is a typical case where biology is more relevant than gender identity.

I’ve heard of a post transition trans man with endometriosis who would not have doctors take him on because they couldn’t have male patients in the system with these diagnoses.

The doctor should have realized any female can identify as a man, and that man-identifying females are not less likely than other females to get endometriosis. This is a typical case where biology is more relevant than gender identity.

Here are some more posts and articles about the struggles trans men face with regards to language and health care.

The language struggle they have is somewhat self-inflected. Language has become more genderfied as transactivists have lobbied for it become more genderfied, and that also increases gender dysphoria in the overall population as people don’t like being put in gender boxes.

When I talk about women's issues, I include all women including trans women

Who do you include, all people with certain gender identity? Many of those who face women's problem don't have gender identities, if woman is a gender identity to then you can't include them without disrespecting them by misgendering them with cisgender gender identities. And if woman isn't a gender identity to you, why should woman-identifying males be included just for identifying a certain way? The way I see it you have three choices, exclude all women without gender identities, misgender women without gender identities, or exclude woman-identifying males. I think the middle option is the most morally abhorrent one.

strictly · 2021-09-18T10:53:36+00:00

also many of them say hrt made them attracted to males

I've seen many of them saying they were attracted to men pre-hrt, while they identified as lesbians, but they didn't think that attraction counted as they were only attracted to being with these men as "men" which wasn't possible for them. I've also seen some say claim they are homosexual-attracted instead of female-attracted and that the sex they are into depend on which sex they perceive as their own.

strictly · 2021-09-16T14:48:27+00:00

In case you're curious, there was a discussion about her some months back: https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7xim/lesbians_arent_attracted_to_a_female_gender/

Thanks for the link, I read Kathleen Stock's article, and yeah, it very much sounds like Kathleen Stock is homosexual-leaning bisexual woman, not a lesbian. I think homoflexible bisexual is Julie Bindel’s most likely sexual orientation too. Kathleen Stock doesn’t seem to be a political lesbian though as she doesn’t propagate that straight women should give women a try or that bisexuals should stop sleeping with men in the name of feminism, instead her argument seems to be that bisexual women who enjoy sex with men but prefer women should be called lesbians too (something I strongly disagree with). As Kathleen Stock is the trustee of the LGB Alliance that might be reason they don’t see problem with Julie Bindel stance on homosexuality as Kathleen Stock also sees homosexuality as a form of bisexuality.

strictly · 2021-09-15T22:24:37+00:00

perhaps they are using selective applications of critical thinking, only applying it to TRAs' arguments

It wouldn’t be unusual generally speaking, it’s a common cognitive bias. One would wish they would have higher standard though.

Kathleen Stock seems close to having those beliefs as well, or perhaps has them outright, and there are multiple other women around the same age as Bindel who I've noticed the same claims coming from.

I see, I am not familiar with Kathleen Stock but will look her up.

strictly · 2021-09-15T22:07:04+00:00

I would be curious to see actual numbers on these groups

Between 7-10% of women say they are mostly heterosexual so the total number of bisexual women isn’t super tiny in my opinion if we count the whole range of bisexual women, and a mostly heterosexual bisexual woman would still be able to get something out of a same-sex relationship. We might have different preconceptions of how many strictly straight women there are who would be willing to be in same-sex relationships though, which is fair.

Yeah, but she could just be lying, since she lies about the nature of sexual orientation.

I think there is difference between intentionally saying something you know is false and being wrong (due to biases or not). I think Julie Bindel is wrong about the nature of sexual orientation, and if she is bisexual it would make sense that she is wrong if she is generalizing from one example (herself) and thinks everyone is capable to be attracted to both sexes because she is. In her arguments that is what her assumption seems to be, that everyone is bi but can choose to be behaviorally homosexual.

she claims she is lesbian, lol, not bisexual.

She uses lesbian as synonym to political lesbian, someone who is attracted to women and can be attracted to men but chooses to be behaviorally homosexual (as she has criticized women who have same-sex relationships just to make a point it seems like she thinks attraction to women is important too), that is what we call febfem. That is not the same thing as claiming to be a female person who only has the capacity to be attracted to the same sex, she specifically claims that isn't the case for her. So translated to our words she is claiming to be female exclusive bisexual and not a lesbian but she wants lesbian to be the word for febfem (as she doesn't think homosexuality exists).

strictly · 2021-09-15T20:33:35+00:00

I think that many straight "political lesbians" might act in this way

I think straight political lesbians are usually women who choose to be celibate and think the word lesbian should refer to being a feminist instead of homosexual woman.

Humans who fervently believe in an ideology have done far stranger things.

I think the more painful something is the less likely a person would be willing to do it especially long-term and without outside pressure. I think there exist more bisexual women in the world than straight women who are willing to suffer in same-sex relationships. Also, the reason I think Julia Bindel is a political lesbian and can be attracted to men is because Julia Bindel says she is a political lesbian and can be attracted to men. She also says sex with women is hot in the article where she criticize bisexual women for not going febfem, and she has talked about having been bullied as a teenager for having an obvious crush on a female friend. I think it would be selective of me to only trust the part where she says she is a political lesbian but not the part of being attracted to women, especially as there is no contradiction between being attracted to women and refraining to be with men for political reasons, febfems exist, and her actions make more sense in my opinion if we take her word for it.

strictly · 2021-09-14T22:31:22+00:00

However, I don't understand why LGB Alliance and Lesbian & Gay News (LGN) platforming homophobic people such as Julie Bindel and it makes me wary of their intentions.

I agree it’s problematic that the LGB Alliance is letting Julie Bindel speak for the LGB in this matter. Julie Bindel’s beliefs aren’t much different from trans activists as she also thinks sexual orientation can be unpacked. I think it would be better if a new organization for the LGB was started and for that organization to have a logical and internally consistent stance. That way they could educate people and make those who support woke homophobia realize sexual orientation isn’t something that can be unpacked and hopefully that would make people realize their good intentions would cause harm.

EDIT, missed your question at the end.

Why do LGB Alliance and LGN keep giving a platform to Julie Bindel, when she repeatedly makes homophobic and biphobic claims?

It's said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t think the intention was to cause harm in itself but I think most organizations who cause harm don’t have that as their specific intention. I.e I think even most trans activists who want to lesbians to unpack our “genital preferences” are probably genuinely under the illusion that sexual orientation is something a person can “unpack”. I don't know why the LGB Alliance supports Julie Bindel, maybe they believe in the motto "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", or maybe they haven't done their research and thinks Julie Bindel is famous for being an outspoken lesbians instead of being an outspoken political lesbian.

strictly · 2021-09-14T20:49:13+00:00

I agree that although she might be febfem-- might, she also just might be a politically-motivated straight woman!

I think it’s unlikely that she would be exclusively attracted to the opposite sex. She doesn’t seem to understand that straight women are straight, i.e she thinks it would be easy for a straight woman to just choose to be attracted to women, that doesn’t seem like someone who knows what it’s like to be exclusively attracted to males. She is also in a relationship with a woman and has mentioned having girlfriends as a teenager. I think a woman who is exclusively attracted to men but doesn’t want to be with one due to political motives would rather stay single as there is no homonormative pressuring straight women to be in lesbian relationships so I think it would be quite rare that a straight woman would choose to torture herself like that decade after decade.

strictly · 2021-09-09T15:59:06+00:00

My views are similar to yours but I tend to not identify myself as GC and don't plan on doing so, even though my views are "gender critical" in the literal sense.

Because of my views I would be seen as GC even if I didn’t consider myself one, and in the literal sense I am gender critical. I have participated in the debate subs so it would be clunky denying being gender critical despite my views in the debate roughly aligning with the GC side. It’s like how those who think trans people should be called the opposite sex have to put up with being seen as part of the QT side regardless if they are truscum or tucute.

I tend to think of this set of views as closer to those of the general population.

Yeah, I think many of those who are called TERF find out what terf is by googling what they have been called, because as you say, the view that is seen as “terfy” is just the common view of the general population. A lesbian doesn’t need to be a radical feminist for not being attracted to males but she will get called the acronym of trans exclusionary radical feminist because of it anyway.

I've never met a lesbian (actually homosexual, not "political lesbian") radfem IRL.

I’ve never met a lesbian radfem irl, but I’ve met those who would be considered terfs by others for their homosexuality, it’s an ironic situation when homosexual women are seen as following the movement supporting political lesbianism for meeting the actual definition of lesbian.

Perhaps it is not a GC position as you have defined GC, but it is a radfem position, and often times the line between "GC" and "radfem" gets blurred in GC spaces.

I think old school radfems were the first ones on the left who were vocal about males not being women. Then when males started insisting they were literally women they started calling people on the left TERF for not agreeing despite that most of these people never had been part of radical feminism. Those who were called TERF didn’t agree with the often inaccurate TERF label and decided to call their position gender critical. I remember seeing in the old GC sub on reddit people scolding GC for not following old school radical feminists ideas as a bible and getting downvoted and told GC is their own movement, i.e GC had no moral obligation to support some idea just because some homophobic/genderist oldschool radfem supported it. But as most old school radfems are gender critical in some way lines get blurred as you say, and radical feminism has received an upswing due to GC as some GC people do become radfems. People being banned from reddit and other platforms for not believing in sex change probably increases the radicalization.

I have seen several threads on this sub, months ago, get swarmed with people from the GC sub/Ovarit getting all mad at people here for suggesting that radical feminists are often homophobic

My guess is that the people swarming these threads are radfems themselves so they swarm these threads not because they are critical of gender but because they feel targeted as radfems.

strictly · 2021-09-08T11:11:09+00:00

Do you mind if I ask, do you define "gender critical" (GC) to be something distinct from radical feminism?

Another user here, but will answer too. It used to be said in the old debate sub on reddit that all radfems are GC but not all GC people are radfems. I don't consider myself a radical feminist, the main reason I call myself GC is that is what people tend to call those with my position, i.e I don't believe in universal innate gender identities, I don't believe sex can be changed, I don't think it's transphobic to be truthful about males being male and females being female, nor do I see it as transphobic of monosexuals to not be attracted to trans people of the wrong biological sex.

I found GC through an online search when lesbians started getting called transphobic for not being into males, I wanted to know if there were others who saw how homophobic this was. I think it’s quite common for GC lesbians to have found GC like me, simply being concerned about the new woke homophobia, and not through being involved in radical feminism. My impression is that most GC people who are radfems these days found out about GC first and then become radfems as I know many who almost didn’t know what radical feminism was about before they found GC. I also think there are conservatives who find GC and call themselves GC, but I think as GC stands for Gender Critical then being pro gender in a conservative way is not really being gender critical. Anyway I think if someone made a post in a GC space about Julie Bindel propagating political lesbianism then Julia Bindel would be criticized for that, as denying sexual orientation is not a GC position. I have never posted on ovarit though or in any of the GC subs except for the debating ones, as I don’t believe everything GC says, I have my own views.

strictly · 2021-08-22T14:59:42+00:00

Do you go out much?

I’m not a party person but if you simply mean meeting people or being outside I think I’m about average in that aspect.

This has been my experience as well, which is why I try to avoid friendships with men.

I’m not friends with people I find unpleasant but I don’t care about the biological sex of the potential friend.

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.

That is what I think too.

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

lol, yeah, if they rant about other female people they are probably ranting about you too when you aren’t around. Hearing men making fun of female people on testosterone isn’t uncommon either and they aren’t using male-pronouns for them while doing so. In front of a known female person on testosterone they might censor their thoughts on that subgroup of female people and say sexist things about other female people instead.

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.

With adult human struggles I was referring to adult human struggles that are common to most adult humans, my point was that I don’t feel something uniquely in common with someone just because they share a struggle with me if most humans also share that struggle. Regarding your point, I thought about bringing that up but was lazy, but I agree. The homophobia a straight man who is mistaken for a gay man faces would feel less personal as he knows the homophobia was misdirected.

strictly · 2021-08-20T22:06:31+00:00

That's not transphobia.

If a principal said all female students are allowed to wear trousers but made an exception just for female students who identify as boys/men and said they have to wear dresses, that wouldn't be transphobia to you? I find that surprising as I would see that as very transphobic.

Transphobia would be if he was treated differently from other men,

The biological female was treated differently from biological males for being female, that's sexism, not transphobia, as the difference in treatment is based on sex, not being trans (unless there is something suggesting they forced out woman-identifying males to wear the female dress code too just for being trans, while non-trans people were allowed to wear what they wanted).

strictly · 2021-08-20T21:37:40+00:00

When I said "treated like men" I meant being treated the way men are typically treated in society. They are less likely to be sexually harassed, they are taken more seriously at work, are paid higher wages and other men feel comfortable saying sexist things about women to them.

If a feminine gay man gets sexually harassed, is talked down to and paid less for being gay and feminine, is he treated like a woman? If a butch lesbian is treated seriously but men are openly sexist around her and wants her to join in with the sexist talk, is she treated like a man?

There is no such thing as "woman-identifying males".

You don’t think there exist biological males who identify as women? Are biological males like Contapoints just lying about their gender identities then?

They are women

Adult humans of the male reproductive sex meet the definition of men, not women. But as you obviously refer to something else with the letter combination "woman" it would be helpful if you would translate it into with words we both agree about the meaning. Is it a gender identity (i.e a large percentage of population would be neither men nor women as they lack gender identities), is it a hormone level (i.e pre HRT you would call man-identifying females women) or is it femininity (i.e only feminine people are women) or something else?

if they don't pass they are treated like women

You have complained about woman-identifying males being seen threatening, even in your eyes, is that something you see as woman treatment?

For instance, Lauren Jackson was punched in the jaw over 10 times because she was using the women's restroom.

Again, even in your eyes, is being punched in the jaw for using the women's restroom "woman treatment"? Is that how you think women are typically treated for using the female bathroom? This man-looking biological male was punched for being seen as man, even the your linked link states that as the reason.

I don't know any cis man harassed for using the restroom.

How many of them are regularly using the female restroom like the man-looking biological male in your link?

strictly · 2021-08-19T07:52:46+00:00

For instance, men who continue working at the same place after transition report being treated like men.

Being treated as a man is being treated as being an adult human biological male. I doubt the coworkers starting advising the man-identifying female to start using condoms to prevent impregnating female sexual partners or said birth control wouldn’t be needed in case this man-identifying female was into males. They probably didn’t imagine this man-identifying female anatomically different from the man-identifying female’s actual anatomy. Either the coworkers were biased toward biological females who weren't taking testosterone, or in case this man-identifying female started dressing or acting differently after taking testosterone then the treatment difference was probably based on that. Being treated as a masculine or masculinized female is not the same thing as being treated as biological male, which is what we refer to with being treated as a man.

I'm saying visibly trans women and passing trans women are not treated like men.

Visibly male woman-identifying males are treated as the subgroup of men (adult human biological males) they are. Biological females who hook up with known woman-identifying males are told to use birth control, biological females who hook up with biological females aren't told that. Being treated as a feminine or feminized male is not the same thing as being treated as a adult human biological female, which is what we refer to with being treated as a woman.

strictly · 2021-08-19T06:56:06+00:00

It's both sexism and transphobia.

For it to be transphobia Broussard would have to be treated differently from other biological females just for identifying as a man. If the other biological females were allowed to follow the male dress code, just not Broussard, that would be transphobia. That doesn't seem to be the case as then female and male dress codes in that company wouldn't have been a thing in the first place.

employers are not allowed to create different dress codes for different genders

I've never heard of different dress codes for different gender identities ever having been a thing, seems like it must be a recent phenomena that has risen with the popularity of the gender identity as a concept if that’s a thing. I would be against forced dress codes based on gender identity too, just as I’m against forced dress code based on sex.

strictly · 2021-08-19T06:03:34+00:00

Are you a trans man?

I have quite standard physical features for a biological female.

I live in a large, populous city so maybe that makes a difference.

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. I've luckily not experienced other types of sexual harassment either though.

From what I've read from trans men half the time they are treated like men half the time they are treated like women. I gave examples in this very thread.

According the data I’ve seen the sexual victimization rate of man-identifying females is higher than of other biological females and higher than the sexual victimization rate of woman-identifying males too (both in childhood and adulthood). Man-identifying females would therefore on average have a greater capacity to relate to sexually harassed woman-identifying males than other biological females would be able to relate to sexually harassed woman-identifying males. Regarding the other things you mention, the type of sexism woman-identifying males say they endure has as of yet not been the type of sexism I personally encounter in my life so I can’t personally relate to it. It’s also uncertain that the root cause of the discrimination they face would be the same, they might not look like biological females, or they aren’t in stealth and don’t pass as biological females for that reason. If their biological sex is known they don't get treated as biological females, they usually get treated as feminine biological males and I’m neither of those things. Regarding your anecdotes from man-identifying females, they seem to report that the type of sexism I encounter the most increased after transitioning. 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.

Anyway, my point is, just because someone is a biological female it doesn't mean the biological female is automatically going to be able to relate to woman-identifying males. The only thing all biological females have in common is being biological female, and we don’t have that in common with woman-identifying males. 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.

strictly · 2021-08-16T23:39:16+00:00

That's why I don't understand why GC is reluctant to include trans women in their activism

I remember on r/FTM one trans guy posted his wife is a trans woman and he doesn't nearly experience the same harassment she does when going out in public.

You answer your own question. You admit there are biological females (some who are man-identifying) who don't experience the same type of struggles the woman-identifying male in your anecdote experiences. I am a biological female and I have luckily never been sexually harassed either. A woman-identifying male having had an awful experience I haven’t doesn’t immediately make me relate to the struggles of the woman-identifying male. You take it for granted that it wouldn't make sense for man-identifying females to group with woman-identifying males under feminism as some man-identifying females don’t experience street harassment and some woman-identifying males do etc. What is true for man-identifying females is also true for other biological females. Being harassed in the street is not a unifying biological female experience as some have been harassed and some haven’t, the only thing all biological females have in common is being of the female reproductive sex. It would make as little sense for us to group with woman-identifying males as it does for man-identifying females to group with woman-identifying males as neither of us share reproductive sex with these woman-identifying males.

strictly · 2021-08-16T22:22:36+00:00

Yes. That does not mean we shouldn't change our sexist systems and that doesn't mean women should be told to just transition to men to escape sexism.

So do you think biological females who transition have a trans privilege over biological females who don't transition then?

strictly · 2021-08-16T22:14:35+00:00

Broussard claims he found himself in a meeting with the company's vice president, David Morgan, being told that he had to follow the "female dress code" or be fired.

I agree that that there shouldn’t be a specific dress code just for biological females. It seems all biological females in that company were equally discriminated against though as all biological females were forced to follow that dress code, not just the transidentifying ones, so I see that sexism, not transphobia.

strictly · 2021-07-21T17:18:36+00:00

You said that prenatal hormones that fetuses "are exposed to" at some unspecified time during the 40 weeks it takes for a human fetus to grow to full term have a major influence on sex-linked traits & behavior much later on in life.

I said seem, not definitely, and nothing about major, it’s theory about child imitation. I didn’t state anything about other androgens not mattering. But androgens at one stage doesn't necessarily lead to the same effects as androgen at another stage, and I don't know how long the researchers think this particular timing window expands, and the study itself primarily talks about prenatal androgens, and it’s also hard to know if these girls continued to have an overproduction of androgens even after birth as many of them probably were diagnosed with CAH at birth and got treatment for it, so there wouldn't be much for me to expand on regarding the potential role of post natal hormones in this particular case. I also don’t have limitless time so I will never be able to speak about everything that can be factor.

But it still raises the obvious question: where do these prenatal hormones supposedly come from?

Untreated CAH leads to an overproduction of androgens, this starts before they are born which is why girls with CAH might be born with virilized genitalia.

it is often done with the intent of implying that these hormones come not from the fetus itself, but from the mother

Never implied it came from the mother here, the girls in study have CAH so I thought was obvious that source the was the condition the girls had.

According to a theory advanced by many misogynists and genderists, for some unknown reason women's bodies during pregnancy sometimes give rise to unpredictable surges of sex hormones that cause some fetuses to be flooded with tsunami-like "washes" of the sex hormones that usually predominate in the sex opposite to the fetuses' own sex . This in turn supposedly causes affected fetuses to end up many years later as children, adolescents or adults who are in some way atypical in terms of "gender" expression, identity &/or sexual orientation - or to have other issues like autism, anxiety and learning disabilities.

Prenatal/neonatal androgens being a factor is the leading theory behind female homosexuality. Regarding conditions where scientists think prenatal/neonatal androgens might have a role they are generally uncertain regarding the source of the influencing hormones. It’s known that mothers with certain hormonal conditions (like PCOS) are more likely to give birth to children with certain conditions, making early hormone exposure a possible factor in that condition but this doesn't mean the source of the hormones must come from the mother as it’s equally likely that the child simply inherited the genes related to the mother’s hormonal condition and that in turn causes the child to have a higher androgen production.

at unspecified times prior to birth

It sounded like you thought I too specific for not talking about the potential role of post-natal hormones, but here you seem to think not mentioning a month is too unspecific. They do have theories about the when for some of these things as there some indications about the timings but that would be on a more speculative level.

But no one seems to want to do this or even to discuss it

I think researchers are interested in doing a study like the way you say but studies in this area are not well-funded so often they can only get funding for studies that are very cheap to make. Plus I imagine there is a lot of paper work with consent even for studies that seem simple. As for me, I’m interested in the research but I’m not a researcher, and although I have read a wide range of studies I can’t read studies that don’t yet exist, it’s not to due to lack of wanting. Anyway, it's worth noting the prenatal/neonatal hormones being a factor is only the leading theory for female homosexuality, not male homosexuality (as there are other factor they think matters more there).

as well as the mother-blaming that often underlies them.

What is there to blame if we are talking about homosexuality/GNC? It’s a neutral thing, neither good nor bad. I don’t understand why we should be morally invested in from whom the potentially influencing androgens originally came from, it’s not like we should need a scapegoat to blame in this context as being atypical is not being defective. And in the contexts where the child does indeed have negative condition with strong inheritable factors (like haemophilia) I still don’t think we should see any parent as blameworthy for contributing the gene. Seeing the idea of being the carrier as close to slander would contribute to the idea that the carrier would morally guilty in some way.

strictly · 2021-07-20T17:18:04+00:00

Seems like you’re presuming that survey results = actual number of lesbians in real life = “natural” biological rate of homosexuality among women, is that correct?

Oh so you think lesbians actually outnumber straight women? Lesbians are the smallest sexual minority according to data, but if it would have to fit the sexual orientation distribution of the woman-identifying males then lesbians would the largest group, outnumbering even straight women.

strictly · 2021-07-20T16:32:27+00:00

I didn’t realize “females” were supposed to keep to some “natural” percentage of non-lesbians.

Expect, not supposed. Had they been "female" we would have expected the same distribution of sexual orientation as among females, and we are not seeing that.

strictly · 2021-07-20T01:56:10+00:00

I'm not sure how gc reconciles the essentialism of Blanchardianism with its hard equality.

I not purely into anything, I believe what makes sense to me. I don't call myself a radfem as I don't believe in the blank slate. I don't believe everything in Blanchardianism either.

Blanchardianism seems to have many holes. It keeps making exceptions and the supporters keep making their own rules.

I don't see that as bad thing per se, if something is erroneous then it should be corrected. And if the theory starts not making sense at all, then it should be replaced with a better theory. And we if think Blanchardianism does a fairly good job at getting things right but has holes, and we have no better theory, and the other theories are worse, then I don't really see a problem with Blanchardian model being tweaked into a better model. Theories don't get born perfect.

I am in part an "erotic dresser" and I have to rationalise that. But I also just think it's some kind of identity. I want to express that.

It's not uncommon for people to be romantically attracted to those they are sexually attracted to. I would imagine many paraphilias, including AGP, also have romantic components. I think such a component would be easy to create an identity around. Many trans people (who I suspect are AGP/AAP) talk about their gender identity in with what I perceive as some type of romantic longing. But I am an outsider though, so I can't say for sure if it's like that. Maybe you could describe.

You are essentializing sexuality to gender expression right?

I am saying what i said before, I think there might be a biological mechanism to self-socialization and that early hormones could perhaps influence who we are more likely to imitate as children. You are free to interpret that as essentializing if that is essentializing to you.

...but you do think your masculinity is natural even though you weren't socialized into it.

It feels like my personality, I assume feminine women often feel their femininity is just their personality too (if we don't count things people only do reluctantly because they feel they have to). I am assume I was socialized, I didn't invent a new gender expression, I was probably imitating other people unconsciously. And I was seen as a girl, so I was treated like a girl. I was quite intensely bullied by girl gangs for many years for being a tomboy (they wanted to teach me being more feminine and were angry at me for not complying), and that was social experience I probably wouldn't have had had I not been a girl, and it probably affected me somewhat.

When you say factors, you mean natural factors.

I am not sure what you mean with natural here. With factors I mean I remember being offended at age 4 or 5 when I realized girls were supposed to be decorative to the opposite sex (I don't think I had understood what gendered clothing were before that). From that day I refused to wear anything I considered feminine. My mother still managed to trick me into wearing pink clothes for a couple of months after I had refused skirts/dresses until I realized that pink was also considered feminine, and I was angry with my mother for tricking me. This was socialized, I was reading symbolism into things that i wouldn't have done without a society.

But what do you think of masculinity and femininity in others?

I will probably have to get back to this another day, as I'm a bit short on time right now.

strictly · 2021-07-20T00:50:07+00:00

Partial blanchardianism ?

Blanchard is skeptical about the existence of paraphilic females, I'm not, I've talked to too many paraphilic females to be able to pretend they don't exist. I believe in what makes sense to me.

Isn't that where gc takes the bits it likes about calling men paraphiliacs and rejects the bits about essentialising gender? Would be my expectation.

I can’t unsee what I see so I will call a paraphilia a paraphilia, doesn’t mean I think it’s shameful. Regarding essentialism I don’t know what kind of beliefs you consider essentialising gender so you need to be more specific there.

Females can be gynephilic.

Yes.

Isn't that a lesbian?

Not necessarily, I tend to distinguish between gynephilia and female-attracted, I use the former for the broader etiology of being attracted to what is female associated and the latter for the sex-orientation outcome of being attracted to females.

Lesbians can be attracted to femininity in others.

If she exclusively attracted to female people I would consider her a lesbian, but if she is attracted to feminine males too, then no.

Do you mean men might be more attracted to femininity than biological females?

I think some gynephilic men have their gynephilia tied to femininity instead of females, and that would make them not straight as they would be into feminine males too, although in a gynephilic way.

I think you mean autogynephilia?

No, I meant both. I think what exists in gynpehilia can usually exist in the auto version too.

But then women who identify as same sex attracted are more likely to be gnc.

I.e translated to my words female-attracted males are on average more likely to be gender conforming relative biological sex than homosexual males, I think that’s true on a group level.

I think it points to three traits, orientation, expression and gender identity being related.

Why the identity? Unless you are referring to the AGP itself. I do however suspect the gender identity thing AGP/AAP trans people talk about often is based on AGP/AAP, the romantic part of it (gynephilia can be romantic so I think the auto version can be romantic too). But I am somewhat unsure what you referring to here.

Compared to what though?

Compared to heterosexual people, and I think that’s mainly because of gender norms.

strictly · 2021-07-19T17:21:47+00:00

A bit of all three. Mostly the last. A person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is.

You say you mean mostly the last one but the last sentence refers to the first one, no? And you said believed in all three a bit. Anyway I think you are wrong about the first one if you see that as a general rule for people.

I hope you don’t mind that I call you autogynephilic (not a moral judgment) as this seems to be a common error people with AGP/AAP tend to make, assuming everyone else also have AGP/AAP. As a lesbian I made a similar error growing up. I grew up in homophobic/religious family and was taught homosexuals were straight people with a same-sex fetish so I thought I had this fetish but was otherwise straight. Due to this I thought straight girls only pretended to like boys as I had never experienced it, and that girls with boyfriends were dumb for not saying no to having boyfriends (I found boys repulsive so I figured that had to be standard sentiment for straight girls). It took time for me to understand they weren’t behaving illogically and that it was me being dumb for not realizing they actually liked boys.

I think what causes a woman to conform to femininity is generally different from what causes a male cross dresser with AGP to conform to femininity. The woman would have been socialized into it since early age but a male cross dresser with AGP is aroused by performing femininity so he would be motivated by that.

You say you think a person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is. I think people who are aroused by expressing masculinity or femininity are generally aware of it, and I would guess you too are aware of finding it exciting. Some might not like the awareness though, so they call it something else, like gender euphoria, or they mistakenly think it’s like that for everyone, but they do tend to be aware of their sexual excitement in some way. I am a masculine woman and I think there are factors that might have influenced that. I have never found being masculine exciting though, and when someone talks about how their masculinity as being sexually arousing or euphoric to them it’s like hearing androphilic people talking about men, it’s very unrelatable and the way they talk about it often seems androphilic in nature to me.

strictly · 2021-07-19T16:38:19+00:00

I find this too evasive. I don't think it describes the patterns.

I think you misunderstand me somewhat, and it describes the pattern I see, but you are free to disagree as you see a different pattern from your perspective.

I think the trans argument that gender expression is only "personality" doesn't play out.

Here is where I think you misunderstand me, as I don't believe that gender expression is only personality for most trans people. I believe in blanchardianism (not everything though). I think some transition due to being very GNC, but I don't think most transition for being very GNC in the west. I think among transitioners AGP/AAP is very prevalent, and usually they are more concerned about the body they want to have, not everyone though. Just as some gynephilic people might be more attracted to femininity than biological females, I think some people with autogynphilia might be more into femininity than desiring a female body.

There is a pattern of trans people being far more likely to identify as gay relative to their gender identity and far more likely to identify as gnc relative to their gender identity than the average population.

What are you trying to say here? You mean males who identify as women are more likely to be masculine and attracted to females than the average female? I agree with that, many of these male transitioners are "transbians" as you say, way more than we would expect had they truly been "female". But that seems like a weird argument for you to make. So are you actually trying to say that unusually many of the males who transition are homosexual and GNC? I agree with that too, homosexuals and GNC people are over represented among transitioners, but I think the AGP group is an even greater group. AGPs might be same-sex attracted too though (but usually not exclusively) and GNC (some crossdressed for sexual/gender euphoric reasons before transition). Note, this not a judgement of people with AGP/AAP, I don't really care if someone has AGP/AAP, I just don't think it makes someone the opposite sex.

strictly · 2021-07-19T15:55:46+00:00

I saw that I am different to others in my sexuality, so I just went different in other ways as well, just because I already was not like others in some aspects.

I was a tomboy as a kid and got bullied for it. I was a tomboy before I knew I was a lesbian. Among GNC homosexuals many seem to have been GNC before puberty, long before they were aware of being different from other kids in sexuality. There are certainly those who become GNC later too, and many who were never GNC at all, but on average homosexuals seem to have been more likely to have been GNC from a very early age than straight people on average. That is why some homosexuals are concerned about early child transition for GNC children and see that as gay conversion therapy as a significant percentage of them would probably grow up as homosexual.

strictly · 2021-07-19T15:22:11+00:00

Please explain where the "prenatal androgens" and "prenatal hormones" that these persons "were exposed to" in utero came from. How are they different to the androgens and hormones that babies are "exposed to" during the puberty of infancy?

I think androgens in general are relevant, and the timing, as androgens don't always have the same effect depending on the timing.

Why is that you (& many others) are so willing to give credence to the idea that "prenatal hormones might influence" human behavior, but totally overlook the possible role of the sex hormones human babies make in vast quantities in the first 6 months of life starting at circa 4 weeks after birth?

I didn't mention the existence of the sun either. Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean I don't believe in it. I can't mention everything as that would make posting something a full time job.

Your generalizations about "monkeys" undermines your arguments.

I said monkeys as I didn't remember the species and couldn't find the study, I mentioned not finding the study and it being several years ago since reading it so everyone would be free to ignore if they wanted to.

strictly · 2021-07-19T10:05:38+00:00

When girl is said that she is "other" or she is laughed out for having facial hair from the very childhood - no wonder she will not want to comply with gender stereotypes.

Girls with CAH who get treatment don't all grow facial hair in early childhood, I think it would have been mentioned in the study if following fake gender norms depended on the child being bearded or not.

That's a lie, which was already debunked in studies in 90s and 00s, as all this is imposed on kids.

The study will mention other studies, that's almost inevitable, even studies you agree with would more often than not also mentions studies you don't agree with, but this is not the study itself. And the conclusion of the study is that the difference is not about the toys themselves.

But they are still making assumption, that it is what boys and girls like and that it is natural.

The point of the study is making fake norms and see the tendency to follow them. There is an article mentioning this study where Cordelia Fine who wrote the book delusions of gender is one of the co-authors https://theconversation.com/how-we-inherit-masculine-and-feminine-behaviours-a-new-idea-about-environment-and-genes-82524.

This is very weird statement. As far as I know, if they receive treatment for "wrong sex" - they will simply die. So there no "assigment" involved - it is just what medical personel was required to do to save lives of those kids.

They will use woke terms as they have to. Almost all studies nowadays use woke terms in some way or the other, one has to ignore that and read the meaning behind the word if one likes reading studies.

Anyway, it's worth mentioning I don't believe in the blank slate. I have read many studies and I have also read Cordelia Fine's books where she criticize the studies, and I mostly agree with the criticisms. One of the things that are hard to explain through pure socialization is the heterosexual/homosexual differences. In studies homosexuals are on average more gender non-conforming than heterosexual people, and that seems to be the case for pre-homosexuals too (i.e children who are more gender non-conforming seem to be more likely to be same-sex attracted later in life). There are many ways to try to explain away this but none of those explanations ever seemed that convincing to me. The self-socialization theory would explain it though, and the self-socialization theory doesn't support the inevitability of gender norms.

strictly · 2021-07-19T01:22:48+00:00

Could you share the studies you mentioned at the end of your comment?

Here girls with CAH (who were exposed to more prenatal androgens) seem less likely than other girls to follow fake female gender norms (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0125) so prenatal hormones might influence who we imitate. It was a long time ago since I read about the self-socialization theory so can't find the other studies right now but there was a finding on monkeys where male monkeys didn't learn to be take care of monkey children by female monkeys, but if there were older nurturing male monkeys, then they would follow the example of these nurturing male monkeys and learn to take care of monkey children from them.

strictly · 2021-07-19T00:26:03+00:00

But in what do they based their "gender identity" if not "gender expression"? So, how can then "gender identity" be innate?

I think some trans people who are gender non-conforming relative biological sex base their gender identity partly on gender expression but I think many base it on the body they want to have, and then they invent a narrative where they more or less imagine all people as needing to inhabit a certain body type, that way they can say they are just like the opposite sex for wanting to inhabit that body (by assigning the opposite sex the same desire they themselves have).

strictly · 2021-07-19T00:00:46+00:00

I think masculinity and femininity are sexuality.

I am also curious about what you mean with this. Are you saying it sexually arouses a masculine/feminine person to display masculinity/femininity? Or are you saying masculine and feminine people use their masculinity/femininity to attract sexual partners? Or do you mean we are sexually attracted to people displaying masculinity/femininity? Or perhaps a combination of all three?

Masculinity and femininity follow the same pattern.

I don’t think gender roles are necessary for the development of androphilai/gynephilia. I think androphilia/gynpehilia can end up developing in different ways depending on what it hooked into during development. In a society without gender roles there would only be biological sex for androphilia/gynephilia to hook into as that would be the only thing associated with the each sex. We don’t live in a world without gender roles though so for some people androphilia/gynephila might have hooked into everything associated with each sex, including cultural things. Or in some cases it might have only hooked into the cultural things but not the biological sex itself, making the person attracted to masculinity/femininity regardless of the sex of the person.

Is your theory that most people would end up asexual in a hypothetical genderless society?

It's emergent from human nature so you can't abolish it.

I think there might be a biological mechanism making people on average more likely to imitate members of their own sex as there has been a few of studies pointing in that direction. But that wouldn't make gender roles inevitable per se.

strictly · 2021-07-18T22:25:36+00:00

I don't see how this is not the case that everyone is already both male and female when every cell has the potential to become sperm or egg.

I think weightlifters who choose to use a crane to lift more weight than the other the contestants should be declared the winners in the weightlifting olympics. I think humans should get the credit for being the fastest animal on land and on air as we can outspeed falcons with planes and cheetahs with cars.

We could go further, why is it that a heart is different from a kidney, an arm, an eye, a brain, etc, when in natural embryonic development, the same stem cells differentiate to give rise to all mentioned organs? Every organ comes from the same origin, the same stem cells, so why do we consider them to be different from one another? Why do we consider there be a "heart", "eye", etc separate from each other, that are their own things?

I agree, I think doctors during a heart transplantation should be allowed to replace the heart with a liver if the hospital has an overflow of livers. No need to inform the patient of this decision in advance, heart and livers have the same origin as you say so it doesn’t make sense for the patient to see hearts and livers as their own things, it’s not like patient is going to die for it.

strictly · 2021-07-17T19:50:17+00:00

Are you saying CAIS can be either male or female

CAIS can exist in females too, just as CAH can exist in males, but you are probably not talking about them as they are dyadic females and males.

Males with CAIS often have a shallow vagina, undescended testicles and no ovaries. They look female but they are not female.

CAIS identify as women

Woman isn't an identity so identity can't make anyone a woman.

I want good articles

How do you expect such articles to be published when any such article would be censored/banned for not calling woman an identity?

strictly · 2021-07-17T19:17:00+00:00

It still was, there was just misunderstanding, as doctors were not qualified enough for this.

You mean this has been debunked? https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/16/4/717/3114050 I would be interested in seeing the study of the debunking.

strictly · 2021-07-17T19:12:41+00:00

How can vagina, uteruses, ovaries, etc be female-only organs when males can have them too?

I don't know which particular conditions you talk about here, or the state of these vaginas/uterus/ovaries and therefore I can't know which sex I consider these people to be. A person who produces ova is female by definition though.

they might indicate that the definitions of male and female may be flawed

You do realize that language has a limit and that has nothing to do with the definition of male/female in particular? There are tales of Socrates going around asking people to define the most basic things and making fun of them as nobody ever succeeded in giving the perfect definition to anything, all definitions were ambiguous in some way. You can try with what a chair. How would you define chair so it includes exactly all chairs and exactly zero of everything that isn't a chair? It's not possible. Instead you have to be consistent with your rigor, expect the same level of rigor of the definition as you would of other definitions you believe in. You can't expect the impossible though, the first perfect definitions that can be put into words when nothing else in world yet has perfectly worded definitions. In your head though, even though you might not be be to find the perfect words, you probably have a very clear picture of what male and female is, no? The same with the moon, sun, stone, you know what they are, even if your worded definitions could end up somewhat ambiguous.

strictly · 2021-07-17T18:29:28+00:00

And SRY gene indicates sex in 100% of cases.

I've heard of extremely rare cases where it didn't (like once in a billion) so I wanted to cover it all.

I think it was considered as slur, same as hermaphrodite, until gender identity appeared recently and made slurs like queer or intersex - to be overused again.

I am ESL (English second language) so I am not always familiar what is considered outdated terminology in English.

strictly · 2021-07-17T18:07:58+00:00

That, and there are men with, for example, persistent Mullerian duct syndrome that have a uterus and fallopian tubes: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/persistent-mullerian-duct-syndrome/#:~:text=Persistent%20M%C3%BCllerian%20duct%20syndrome%20is,which%20are%20female%20reproductive%20organs%20.

If there is ova production then that person is female by definition regardless of chromosomes. Usually chromosomes indicates sex unless ova production/sperm production show otherwise. But we are talking about intersex cases here, and they are called intersex for a reason.

So females can have penises and testes, and males can have uteruses ...?

Dyadic females never have penis/testes. Dyadic males never have uterus. In intersex conditions sex organ can look in-between, so I don't know if what they call a penis look exactly like the penis of a dyadic male or if it's very masculinized clitoris they call a penis, but intersex people are not dyadic so they are not examples of how it is like for dyadic people. Either way, someone who produces ova would be female by definition, and someone who produces sperm would be male by definition. And most of these "chicks with dicks" are just regular dyadic men with breasts capable of producing sperm (or could if they had not been taking estrogen).

Why would testes and penis be male-only organs when females can have them too?

Testes and penis are male-only organs for dyadic people, and the great majority of trans people are dyadic, not intersex.

strictly · 2021-07-17T17:03:52+00:00

Were those male rats really "pregnant"?

With sophistic word games it's easy to define anything as anything. We could define inanimate incubators for early born babies as "pregnant", and that would have more merit than calling the non-pregnant male rats "pregnant" as at least inanimate incubators wouldn't be claiming the credit of someone else’s body parts while incubating babies. It's the female rat that is pregnant, putting the pregnant part of the female rat inside a male rat doesn't make the male rat pregnant, it's makes the female rat pregnant inside a male rat.

Is it even true that "males can not get pregnant", and "females can not have penises"?

It’s true that flat-chested females can get pregnant and that males can have breasts. You should just call it what is instead of using misnomers, and then there is nothing confusing or strange about it.

Males in the past have been born with uterus

Are you talking about chimeras who are the result of a male and female embryo getting fused? Anyone producing ova is by definition at least part female.

Cis men can impregnate trans men.

Human males can impregnate human females, nothing new or strange about that.

Why isn't it possible to transfer a uterus, ovary, vagina, etc to the body of a male? Why isn't it possible to transfer penis, testes, etc to the body of a female?

We can as a hypothetical imagine taking the ovaries and uterus of a brain dead female human and putting it inside a male human and imagine a pregnancy. That would be the living body parts of the brain dead female human getting pregnant inside a male human, still not the male being pregnant. A female could attach the penis of a brain dead male to her body, she still doesn’t have a penis, she is just using the penis of someone else.

If only men can have testes and penises, and if testes and penises are only male organs, why is it that women with certain intersex conditions have testes and penises?

Anyone who produces sperm (by themselves, letting the living sex organs of a brain dead male person produce it doesn’t count) is by definition male. Anyone who produces ovas (by themselves, letting the living sex organs of a brain dead female person produce it doesn’t count) is by definition female. In a hypothetical case that someone would produce both sperm and ovas (with their own sex organs, not using the living sex organs of a brain dead person) then that person would be both male and female. So either you are saying there exists males who produce sperm, and we completely agree those who produce sperm are male, or you are inventing a dilemma by incorrectly claiming we would consider sperm producers as not being male. Non-males who produce sperm don’t exist simply because anyone producing sperm is already defined as male to begin with.

strictly · 2021-07-16T13:15:09+00:00

What about changing sex with the use of technology and engineering?

Maybe, and if/when that day comes I am willing to consider former males who produce ova and not sperm as having changed their sex and I would see them man-made females and vice versa for former females. Worth noting that I wouldn’t consider this achieved through the organ donation of the sex organs of a deceased female/male as that would be the deceased female/male producing the ova/sperm, not the male/female using the deceased female’s/male’s sex organs.

Is there a reason why a neopenis that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural penises can not be considered a real penis? Or a neovagina that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural vaginas can not be considered a real vagina?

If it’s made of vagina cells, has all the functions of a vagina and is made of the person’s own genetic material (not the vagina of a deceased female) then I would consider the neovagina a real man-made vagina. As a lesbian it wouldn’t make me interested in sexually interacting with that man-made vagina though. A male in the future could perhaps with futuristic technology become a man-made female but a male could never become a natural female (a female with a female origin) as history is unchangeable. I would define attraction to man-made females as female attraction but at that stage we would probably create a new system for categorizing sexuality as many monosexuals tend to care about the origin too.

Some trans people seem to think origin shouldn’t matter in hypotheticals like these but humans tend care about origins overall. Most vegetarians wouldn’t eat man-made carrots made from genetically engineered meat of slaughtered cows, most wouldn't pay the same price for a copy of a Rembrandt painting copy as for a Rembrandt painting original, most would be more excited about a love letter written by a crush than the same letter written by someone we don’t care about it. We care about the origin/history as we care about the story behind, someone who artificially made themselves female has another story than someone who was just born that with a female body without intention. So in short I would consider a man-made female as being female, but I wouldn’t consider man-made females as the same as natural females.

At the moment no trans person is even close to having changed sex though, we hear about pregnant "trans men", but never of pregnant "trans women", we hear of "trans women" impregnating but never of "trans men" impregnating, female partners of "trans women" are told to use birth control and "trans men" are told the same if they have male partners.

strictly · 2021-07-12T00:33:02+00:00

There are gay women that say they are "into penises, but not into men, so trans women work"

Evidently not gay then.

gay men that say they are "into vaginas, but not into women, so trans men work".

Another example of someone not being gay. Your argument builds on the opinion of supposed gay people yet you don't mention anyone who is actually gay, just people who are attracted to the opposite sex.

What's wrong with "women can have penises, testes, sperm, etc,

Everything.

Why would the words "man" and "woman", "male" and "female" be reduced to sex organs and gametes?

They have never been reduced to that, the very definition you criticize clearly states that men and women are adult humans of a certain sex, aka also adult and human, not just floating sex organs, and the human factor is very encompassing, the exact opposite of reductive. Being adult and human is just not the distinguishing factor between between men and women, as both are adult and human. The distinguishing factor being reduced to sex organs and gametes is good thing though from an anti-reductivness perspective, had we declared the distinguishing factor to be anything else than that then that would have truly reduced men and women to a set of stereotypes. Imagine if we had declared the very encompassing human trait to be the distinguishing factor, then either men or woman would have to be seen as inhuman for that to be the distinction between them.

strictly · 2021-07-10T17:44:00+00:00

I probably wouldn’t use the term rape

I consider the deception method of rape on the same moral level as other methods of rape, it’s one of the most violating things one can do to another person.

Guys may think you are a tease, but it’s better than putting yourself in danger or risking violating another persons boundaries.

I am a lesbian so I have no experience with how sexual situations with men tend to play out. I think if someone is very insistent and wants to fast-track sex then that person needs to take part of the responsibility for not giving sexual partners more of a chance disclose important information so I would consider it one of few mitigating circumstances.

strictly · 2021-07-10T16:54:42+00:00

I think sexuality is more nuanced than simply being attracted to birth sex.

Your sexuality is more nuanced than simply being attracted to only one biological sex but current available data shows being of the wrong biological sex is a sexual deal breaker for the majority of people (including me) even though it doesn't happen to be the case for you.

strictly · 2021-07-10T11:22:50+00:00

Should trans people disclose?

They should disclose if sex is planned.

Why or why not?

Because rape is wrong.

And if so, when (and why then)?

Before sex to prevent it being rape.

Is it a form of rape, sexual assault, or violation to not disclose? If so why and at what point (date? Kiss? Sex?)? If not, why not?

If the victim wouldn't have given informed consent it’s rape.

Is not disclosing sex comparable to not disclosing race, religion, marital status etc? Why or why not?

Being of the wrong biological sex is the greatest sexual deal breaker for the majority of people. Race, religion and marital status are less common deal breakers, and when it's a deal beaker these deal breakers are usually of smaller magnitude than being of the wrong sex (i.e I think most monosexuals who are opposed to being with married people would still rather have sex with a married person of the right sex than a unmarried person of the wrong sex if forced to pick). With less common deal breakers I think the onus is on the one with the less common deal breaker to reveal their deal breaker, and I think ignorance can be claimed if the sexual partner simply didn't know about the deal breaker. Ignorance cannot be claimed regarding biological sex being a deal breaker as that is the default, so if we are aware that we typically pass as the opposite sex we should assume no consent exist until we have disclosed our biological sex and the potential sexual partner has given informed consent.

Either way, any time you have reason to suspect the potential sexual partner wouldn’t give informed consent to sex with the facts on the table it’s violation to have sex with that person while withholding the information that would made them say no. When you had such suspicion it’s morally indefensible to claim you had right to violate the victim just because they forgot to mention their deal breaker, nobody deserves being sexually violated, not even forgetful, naive or gullible people. And if the victim feels raped after the perpetrator intentionally sexually violated the victim the violation was obviously traumatic enough to be considered rape. I.e don’t think someone with an identical twin can at night enter the room of the twin’s spouse and have sex the twin’s spouse well aware the twin’s spouse is under the impression it’s their spouse and claim afterwards the twin’s spouse deserved it for forgetting to specify not wanting sex with the wrong twin.

Is it safer for trans people to disclose or not to? Why or why not?

I think it’s usually safer to abstain from rape attempts when you are scared that the potential sexual partner might get violent as an intended rape victim would have more reason to be pissed than someone who is given the chance to give informed consent. Fear of violence is not a valid excuse to rape someone in my opinion, disclosing or raping are not the only two options, breaking it off without neither disclosing nor raping is better when you fear the one you want sex with.

strictly · 2021-07-08T07:45:09+00:00

Someone who primarily identifies by their sex assigned at birth is cisgender.

Knowing your biological sex is simply knowledge, not an identity, otherwise Buck Angel would be a cisgendered woman, or perhaps "bigender" for "identifying as biological female" and having this "man-identity" at the same time. It's you who is assigning people with gender identities simply for knowing their biological sex, this shouldn't be assumed without asking the person in question if their biological sex is indeed a primary identity to them and the person saying yes to that.

Agender is part of the transgender spectrum.

Yeah, so people who say they have no gender identity wouldn't be cisgender even according to gender ideology.

I know GC people don't agree, but someone whose gender identity matches their birth sex is cisgender. That's literally all cis means.

I actually agree that people who have made their biological sex into their gender identity are cisgender so I have never disbelieved your gender identity. I am saying all the people who don't share your gender identity are not cisgender and that many people are simply biologically female without having any matching gender identity and should not be called cisgender.

That's literally all cis means.

Yeah, making it an insulting thing to be called for anyone who doesn't have a gender identity as it's lie.

However, a GC person will call adult AFAB a woman, even if the person states they are not a woman. They insult AFAB people.

What you see as the insulting thing here is not sharing your definitions, but there is no lie as we are not referring to any false gender identity. Even to you an "AFAB"-person is an "AFAB"-person regardless if that "AFAB"-person likes being "AFAB" or not, and woman is simply the word for adult human "AFAB" to us. I consider lies worse than uncomfortable truths. Changing the definition of woman to refer to gender identity instead would almost inevitably lead to misgendering female people en masse with false gender identities, that goes against my morals.

EDIT: Accidental double negation

strictly · 2021-07-07T23:31:44+00:00

Trans men claim they are men

They claim that they have a gender identity which they have named "man" so they are talking about gender identity, not biological sex. You need to prove 100% of all the men you call cisgender also refer to gender identity and not biological sex, you have no such proof.

If the man did not have a gender identity, he would not be referring to himself as a man, but rather "AMAB".

If a man referring to himself as a man does not have a gender identity he would not define man as a gender identity, that means he would not need to refer to himself with the letter combination "amab" as he uses the letter combination "man" to refer to exactly that. You already know not everybody agrees with your genderfied redefinitions so it's intellectually dishonest of you to suddenly pretend as if everyone (including GC) would refer to gender identity and not biological sex when you know that's not the case. You need to prove the man defines man as gender identity before you safely call the man cisgender for referring to himself a man.

It sounds like you have a hard time understanding that GC and genderists are referring to different things with certain letter combinations, and that it is the thing referred to, not the letter combination itself, which gives a word its meaning. When you call me something I don't care about the exact sounds that come out of your throat, I care about what you mean. Therefor I would consider it an insult if you called me a woman, as you, as a genderist, would refer to a gender identity I don't have, making it a lie. Had you not been a genderist and simply meant adult human biological female, then that is a true statement and not an insult.

strictly · 2021-07-06T23:49:43+00:00

The majority of people in this world identify as men or women

Knowing your biological sex is not an gender identity (otherwise all trans people would be considered cisgendered people of their biological sex) so you need proof that all these people refer to gender identity and not biological sex when calling themselves men and women. You have no such proof so it's disrespectful of you to make baseless assumptions about their gender identities when you don't know what they are talking about. To know if man calling himself a man can be used as proof of the man being cisgendered you first need to ask the man to define the word man, only in cases the man defines it as a gender identity it can used as proof of admitting to have a gender identity. In many cases the man is just referring to being biological adult human male and that's it. To translate it to terminology you understand, the male is just admitting being "amab", and you don't use trans people calling themselves "amab" as proof of them actually being "cisgendered" and having amab as their gender identity.

strictly · 2021-07-06T23:20:58+00:00

If your filling out a form (non-medical) and they ask for your gender/sex with options of "male" "female" and "other". If you're cis, you select your birth sex. If your not cis, you have to select something else.

Many trans people have recognized their biological sex outside of medical forms (including Blair White and Buck Angel), knowing your biological sex is not gender identity. You need proof that the person admitting being female/male is a hardcore genderist and is indeed referring to gender identity and absolutely not biological sex when using words for biological sex. As you define male and female as gender identities then you calling yourself the word you use for a gender identity can be used as proof of you yourself having a gender identity but it doesn't prove any of that for those who don't share your genderfied definitions. That would be like if an American speaking English would call a bottle of wine a "gift" and the German police would arrest the American for admitting to giving away poison as gift is the German word for poison. Using a certain letter combination can only be proof of having a gender identity if that letter combination is the letter combination the person personally uses to refer to gender identity, otherwise the person is speaking about something else.

Ok. Someone without a gender identity is not a man or woman.

As you define man and woman as gender identities someone without a gender identity would have neither of gender identities you refer to, so yes, that is the most consistent/respectful stance a genderist can take. I think people who define man and woman as gender identities are morally obligated to never call anyone a man or a woman unless they have proof the person has the gender identity referred to as we shouldn’t make assumptions about people's minds.

strictly · 2021-07-06T00:05:17+00:00

The only thing is some people don't like to be called cis.

Those who don't like being called cis are those who aren't cis. I think that is kind of given even according to gender ideology, gender identities are supposed to feel affirmative so people who are truly cisgender would love being called cis. A true gender identity wouldn't feel insulting or incogruent to be called, according to gender ideology hating to be called a gender identity would be sign of not having that gender identity.

strictly · 2021-07-05T23:55:41+00:00

When we coined the term, we meant it to mean someone whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth

If the person in question doesn't have a gender identity then its misgendering, something you claim to be against.

Calling someone cis is not an insult.

When you insist someone without a gender identity has one you are lying about them, and most people see being lied about as an insult, especially if you continue lying about them despite their protest. And as you are lying about their mind that is very personal.

strictly · 2021-07-05T23:36:57+00:00

GCs don't see Buck as a man, but Buck sees himself as a man.

GC sees Buck as an adult human female and Buck does the same. As Buck and GC refer to two different things with the letter combination "man" we have to translate it. Buck is referring to having a gender identity, as anyone can identify as anything there is no reason for me to disbelieve anyone's gender identity so I would agree that Buck has the gender identity Buck claims to have as there is nothing that stops women from having the gender identity Buck has.

Other trans men say it's easier to publish their work than under a female name

Exactly, their gender identity had nothing to with it, any female person passing as the opposite sex/using a male name would get the same result as these females, regardless of gender identity.

they will always experience female oppression no matter what

They will experience it at the same level as any female person in their situation. Females who identify as men and don't pass as men will experience female oppression at the same level as other female people who don't pass as men. Females who identify men and pass as men will experience female oppression at them same level as other female people who pass as men. In countries where abortions is banned pregnant females who identify men will be banned from having abortions just like other pregnant females. Identity itself makes no difference.

I was specifically talking about trans men who pass as male.

Then you are talking about looks, and looks are not same thing as identity.

Anyway, we were talking about cisgender gender identities and experiencing female oppression doesn't prove a person would have a a cisgender identity (fetuses who are aborted for being female may have had any gender identity). I personally don't care that you have a cisgender gender identity, your mind, your business. I do take issue that you want to label people without gender identities with false gender identities against their will.

strictly · 2021-07-05T00:25:44+00:00

Buck is going to say he's a man who was born female.

Which proves that the thing Buck refers to with the letter combination "man" has nothing in common with what GC refer to with man, as we still only refer to males. When Buck refer to males though Buck recognizes not being male. Recognizing one's biological reality is not a gender identity, otherwise Buck Angel would be a cisgendered woman. We are only recognizing our biological reality, and that's it (something many trans people do too).

they don't claim they themselves oppressed due to being female

There are those who indeed do that.

especially after medical transition

You don't define trans people by hormone status so hormones shouldn't matter for you here. You talk about identity and you don't need hormones to have an identity. So either female people can recognize being oppressed due to being female without having cisgender gender identities or they can't and females who call themselves men and recognize their female oppression are all cisgendered women according to you. Which way is it?

Many have said they don't fear going out alone at night the same way cis women do.

Sounds like that has to do with looks, not identity. Unless you are saying they were all cisgendered women before deciding to become trans.

strictly · 2021-07-04T23:17:35+00:00

I recognize I was born female and have female specific internal organs, just as Buck does, if that doesn't make Buck cis then recognizing the same reality Buck recognizes doesn't make anyone else cis either.

If you ask Buck if he's a man

If you ask Buck if Buck is an adult human male Buck is going to say no. As Buck isn't referring to adult human males with the letter combination "man" Buck is obviously referring to an entirely different thing than GC with that the letter combination "man" as we are still only referring to adult human males. We have already determined that recognizing one's physical reality is not a gender identity, otherwise Buck would be cis. To prove males calling themselves men are cisgender you need to prove that 100% of these males are genderists referring to themselves as having gender identities, and absolutely not just recognizing themselves as adult human males, otherwise Blair White would be cis too for recognizing the exact same thing. You have failed to prove that.

Buck also does not claim female oppression.

There have been other females who take testosterone and call themselves as men who have though, are they cis women according to you for recognizing their female oppression as you bring it up?

strictly · 2021-07-03T01:09:13+00:00

I really want to hear your thoughts on this, especially lesbians. She mentions the comphet essay, which I haven't read, but I have read the comphet masterdoc and it's a mess. However, it's important to keep in mind that for the majority of the time she believed she was a "gay trans man", she was on anti-depressants and not experiencing sexual arousal.

I can’t say anything about this specific case due to her young age and the anti-depressants she was on. Many comphet stuff I’ve come across though just reads like the woman is giving a long account of how sexually irresistible she finds men but not liking the power this gives men over her, and for some reason interpreting that as lesbianism.

There could perhaps exist extreme cases where a lesbian for some reason thinks it’s obligatory to have sex with men and thinks testosterone would make such horrible inevitability slightly less so. I don’t think this is common though. Most lesbian-identifying people who transition and start identifying as gay men just sound androphilic, often they admit having been attracted to men before transitioning, having been fans of yaoi/gay porn, and mention androphilic/AAP reasons for having identified as lesbians before (i.e it made them feel more like the men they are attracted to). I think most gender dysphoric homosexual females would rather be straight men than gay men (I don't see why a lesbian, i.e someone who isn't attracted to men, would find the latter better than the former).

strictly · 2021-07-02T23:16:09+00:00

Cis merely means you aren't trans.

It doesn’t, otherwise you would be fine just calling us non-trans, instead you choose to refer to more narrow concept of having a gender identity at the same side of biological sex even though that’s not the case for us.

Trans people often say calling non-trans people people cisgender is like calling people straight. We don’t call non-homosexual people heterosexual indiscriminately though as not all non-homosexual people are heterosexual. It would be wrong of me to claim heterosexual just means “not homosexual” and call bisexual heterosexual, because heterosexual means more than not homosexual, it means being attracted to only the opposite sex. It’s the same way with cisgender, it implies way more than merely not transitioning.

strictly · 2021-07-02T20:27:03+00:00

Yes. I had one nightmare as a teenager though where I woke up married to a man and had children (I've never wanted kids). The dream me had no idea of how I could have let something like that happen and looked for a way commit suicide as that reality was too horrible for the dream me to live with. I was very relieved waking up and realizing none of it was true. It was the most nightmarish nightmare I've ever had, and I have had many normal nightmares with murders chasing me etc.

strictly · 2021-07-02T19:57:16+00:00

Agender is part of the nom-binary spectrum.

More or less all people here would be trans according to the definitions trans activists use, yes. I personally think that is an overly broad definition so I define trans as someone who is taking hormones. But if not having a cisgender gender identity is the being trans to you I think you should own up to that and recognize most of us are trans according to the definitions you adhere to.

that means you can't call yourself male or female anymore.

Plenty of trans people have called themselves their biological sex. Blair White has recognized being a biological male, Buck Angel has recognized being a biological female, are they cis according to you? You shouldn't make special rules just for non-trans people. And trans people say gender identity and biological sex are two separate things so being truthful about one’s biological sex (a truth the person might not even like) doesn’t really say anything at all about that person’s gender identity. Thirdly, even people who call themselves nonbinary and specifically avoid calling themselves the specific letters “male” and “female” are still frequently calling themselves biological males and females by calling themselves amabs and afabs. The meaning of a word is what it refer to, not the specific letters combinations used, so if female trans people call themselves afabs, they are still calling themselves females as female is what they refer to.

strictly · 2021-07-02T19:04:09+00:00

Trans people do not identify with their biological sex.

And you shouldn't automatically assume non-trans people do either, that would be hypocritical.

strictly · 2021-07-02T17:51:22+00:00

Anyone who identifies with their birth sex is cis.

Knowing your sex is not an identity, otherwise all trans people would be considered cisgendered people of their biological sex, in fact trans people would be considered even more "cis" than other people of their biological sex as they more acutely aware of their biological sex than the regular person due to being so unhappy about it. So unless you are willing to call Chaz Bono a cisgendered woman for aware enough their sex to able to be unhappy about it it would be hypocritical of you to misgender non-trans people with false gender identities just for knowing the same biological facts about their bodies as trans people do.

Also, if it had been true we all had this cisgender gender identity you claim we have, it's strange indeed that we would ask you stop misgendering us with this false cisgender identity. Had we indeed had this gender identity you claim we have we would have felt validated by it, like you, and love being called this gender identity, but it's the opposite. Either people should be taken seriously when they talk about their gender identities, regardless of trans status, or nobody should be taken seriously they talk about their gender identities, regardless of trans status. It seems to me though that you think only trans people should be believed and that's hypocritical to me.

strictly · 2021-07-02T15:16:37+00:00

You are correct, but cis identities are depicted accurately.

If non-trans people are depicted as all being "cis" then they are obviously not depicted accurately, and it's leads to non-trans people being misgendered in masse with false gender identities, especially by trans activists. being falsely depicted as having a false gender identity is not privilege, it's something that makes people feel bad. Only people who indeed say they have gender identities should be seen as having gender identities.

strictly · 2021-07-02T14:58:21+00:00

People who aren't trans are cis.

Cis is the short form of cisgender, aka having a gender identity at the same side of your sex, which requires having a gender identity in the first place. Many non-transitioners don't have gender identities. Someone who claims to be against against misgendering should respect the lack gender identities of those who don't have gender identities instead of misgendering them with false gender identities.

strictly · 2021-07-02T14:46:53+00:00

I can use public restrooms that match my gender

If public restrooms are gendered then most of us have no restroom matching our non-existing gender identities so trans people with gender identities would have more privilege than non-trans people without gender identities in a countries with gendered bathrooms.

I have the ability to walk through the world and generally blend-in, not being constantly stared or gawked at, whispered about, pointed at, or laughed at because of my gender expression.

I can reasonably assume that my ability to acquire a job, rent an apartment, or secure a loan will not be denied on the basis of my gender identity/expression.

Hollywood accurately depicts people of my gender in films and television, and does not solely make my identity the focus of a dramatic storyline, or the punchline for a joke.

I will not be harassed by the police or denied services at a bank or other institution because my legal sex does not match my gender presentation.

I can easily find role models and mentors to emulate who share my identity.

Here you seem to be talking about gender conformity and heterosexuality which shouldn't be conflated with not being a transitioner. Non-trans people can be discriminated against for their gender non-conformity just like trans people.

Strangers call me by the name I provide

Being called your name can only be considered privilege if you happen to like your name.

I have the ability to flirt, engage in courtship, or form a relationship and not fear that my biological status may be cause for rejection or attack, nor will it cause my partner to question their sexual orientation.

Here you seem to talk about being straight again but even straight people aren’t safe from being rejected by homosexuals of the opposite sex due to their biological status (aka being the wrong sex). Sexual minorities are used to being rejected for being the wrong sex though as most people are straight. It’s also not unusual for sexual minorities to have had straight-identifying partners who questioned their sexual orientation due to being attracted to someone of the same sex.

If I end up in the emergency room, I do not have to worry that one gender will keep me from receiving appropriate treatment, or that all of my medical issues will be seen as a result of my gender.

Are you saying people with gender identities risk getting their physical ailments dismissed as a result of their gender identity? If that’s case the case that seems like a risk you, as a non-trans person, would share with trans people gender identities as you also say you have a gender identity. Or are you talking about gender dysphoria? Then gender dysphoric non-trans people would encounter the same problem as gender dysphoric trans people.

My identity is not considered a mental pathology (“gender identity disorder” in the DSM IV) by the psychological and medical establishments.

In the DSM–5 it’s called gender dysphoria and people who meet the DSM-5 criteria of gender dysphoria would be considered to have mental pathology regardless if they are trans or not so that’s not a unique issue to trans people either.

People don't speculate that my gender identity is a result of abuse or trauma.

It’s not unusual for trans activists to portray non-trans people without gender identities as liars or bigots for not having gender identities so non-trans people are not safe from unfair speculations either.

I have the ability to not worry about being placed in a sex-segregated detention center, holding facility, jail or prison that is incongruent with my identity.

Only one of the those two things can be true for you, either you have the privilege of being placed in a sex-segregated detention or you have the privilege placed in a gender identity-segregated detention. If the former is true than the latter isn’t, as it’s more or less guaranteed a large bunch of the females in sex-segregated detention aren’t going to share your gender identity. And if you have the privilege of being put in sex-segregated detention then trans people have the same privilege, and neither of you have the privilege of being put in a gender identity-segregated detention, putting you both in the same position. Some countries do put trans people in prisons for the opposite sex though, denying people the right to sex-segregated detention, this arrangement might perhaps feel “congruent” with the identities of males prisoners who want to be around females prisoners (as many of these males don't really seem to care about the gender identities of these females, they just want access to female-bodied people), but for a large percentage of the female prisoners it's going to be incongruent as they never shared any gender identity with these males who call themselves women in the first place.

strictly · 2021-06-14T15:54:48+00:00

If one grows up in an isolated chamber, and has no contact with anyone else, they'll never develop any kind of sexual feelings.

I think most would still have a libido as that seems to be the case for non-human animals who grow up isolated from other members of their species, they still seem to have a libido and hump things. Also, humans’ natural state is to be in contact with other humans so looking at humans growing up in total isolation wouldn’t reveal anything natural about humans.

Anyone can fantasize about whichever sex they want.

Sure, I could force myself to sexually picture people I’m not attracted to and the result would be that I would be turned off instead of turned on. I could technically force myself to imagine sex with corpses too, and it would be disgusting. People can choose to imagine sexually disgusting things but they can’t choose to be into it. It would be like imagining drinking pee, sure, I can visualize that, but I can’t force myself to see pee as an appealing thing to drink.

Well, according to those criticising political lesbianism and its familiarities, it's because people claiming they can be attracted to both sexes are, in fact, bisexual, and that, as a fact also, not everyone is bisexual. Now, I disagree with this notion.

You are projecting your own capacity to be attracted to both sexes to people who are wired differently from you.

I find this sex repulsive, but nonetheless can't help myself from being attracted to them.

I don’t think people generally claim to be sexually repulsed by those they are sexually attracted to.

Just because someone can be sexually attracted to both sexes doesn't mean they are.

It wouldn’t matter how many sexual fantasizes I would force myself to have about men, it wouldn’t make men more attractive, it would just reinforce that it would be very sexually unappealing to be with a man.

strictly · 2021-06-13T22:59:40+00:00

But finding the bodies of female people "repulsive" is a whole other matter.

Peakingatthemonoment said that way, referring to sexually, not in general. I feel the same way about men. It doesn’t mean I think all men are objectively ugly, there are horses, cats and dogs who look cute to me too, yet I, like most people, find non-human animals sexually repulsive regardless of their cuteness.

Synonyms for repulsive from Oxford: revolting, disgusting, abhorrent, repellent, repugnant, offensive, objectionable, vile, foul, nasty, loathsome, sickening, nauseating, stomach-churning, stomach-turning, hateful, detestable, execrable, abominable, monstrous, appalling, reprehensible, deplorable, insufferable, intolerable, despicable, contemptible, beyond the pale, unspeakable, noxious, horrendous, heinous, atrocious, awful, terrible, dreadful, frightful, obnoxious, unsavory, unpleasant, disagreeable, distasteful, dislikeable, off-putting, uninviting, displeasing; ugly, as ugly as sin, hideous, grotesque, gruesome, unsightly, reptilian; North American vomitous; informal ghastly, horrible, horrid, godawful, gross, putrid, sick-making, sick, yucky, icky, fugly; British informal beastly; Northern Irish informal bogging; North American informal skanky; New Zealand informal huckery; literary noisome; archaic disgustful, scurvy, loathly; rare rebarbative.

I think all those things are natural things to feel regarding the idea of having unwanted sex with someone one isn’t attracted to. Usually I don’t think about of how it would be like to have unwanted sex, but if the topic comes up, I would say it would be repulsive. It’s not a criticism of the person, I imagine most women, as most women straight, would find it repulsive to be with me sexually, I don’t see that as a sign of disrespect.

strictly · 2021-06-13T19:24:01+00:00

I am homosexual and I cannot choose to be attracted to men just as I cannot choose to be attracted to horses or my siblings. It would be sexually revolting, and I don’t have anything against men/horses or my siblings platonically. I have met more men than women who share my hobbies etc, I have more male friends than female friends, and it doesn’t change the fact that it would be disgusting for me to be sexual/romantic with a man. That is the reason I don’t, I don’t want to rape myself, I just don't like men that way and it has nothing to do with how much in common I think I have with men platonically. I imagine heterosexual feel the same way as I do about the idea of being with the wrong sex, it just feels unnatural to them.

strictly · 2021-06-12T22:48:59+00:00

the argument lesbians are making essentially boils down to "she's so wrong about lesbianism she can't possibly be one."

Having an identity as political lesbian is not the same thing as having homosexual sexual orientation, political lesbian is just someone who identifies as a lesbian due to political reasons so that in itself doesn’t really say anything about her sexual orientation. The only information there is to go on is that she is portrays herself as bisexual by saying it wouldn’t be hard for her to be with men so I choose to take her word for it. She calls homosexuality a choice, had she been homosexual I assume she would have known it isn’t a choice as she would have herself as an example. EDIT: I read the linked archive of another article of her, she doesn't seem to be straight either as she doesn't seem to get that heterosexual women can't choose to be into women, she seems like someone who doesn't get what monosexuality is, probably because she is into both sexes and thus doesn't understand it not possible for a monosexual person to force themselves to be attracted the sex they are not into.

How 'bout you paste the article address into an archive site and read it yourself.

She already convinced me in the article I did read, be it this one or another. If this article is another one she is probably consistent enough that she isn't saying anything there making me think she would be exclusively attracted to women. As you say she was vague I am guessing she didn't say anything about being exclusively sexually into women or that it would be a horrible turn off for her to be with a man. But it’s true that there is some possibility that she could have an ulterior motive to portray herself as bisexual, but for now I will take her word for it.

strictly · 2021-06-12T20:13:11+00:00

It could just as easily mean that she could closet herself and marry a man.

A homosexual woman who forces herself to have sexual relationship with men would live in torture, it would be hard for that homosexual woman, not easy. Julie Bindel says it wouldn’t be hard for her (and she referred to sex/attraction in the article I read where she said that, not fake relationships).

has not had relationships with men in her almost fifty years of adulthood.

Haven't seen/heard her talk about her sexual history. Does she claim to never had sex with a man?

Bindel benefits from recruiting as many women as possible into exclusively partnering with women, and the mostly white-collar professional she's addressing this to don't.

You mean you think she is pretending to be bisexual in hopes to get as many bisexual women as possible to become febfems?

strictly · 2021-06-12T18:49:16+00:00

I read the full article, she does not mention attraction to men or relationships with men.

Does she mention it wouldn't be hard for her to be with men? That is like directly admitting she is attracted to men as it wouldn't be hard for her, as without attraction it would be hard indeed. Otherwise it was in another article she said that. She also says she chooses to be a lesbian which also sounds like she is admitting being attracted to men and just not acting on it, and thinks not acting on male attraction makes her "homosexual". I think she has said some biphobic things in the past too and internalized biphobia could be the reason why she isn't calling herself bisexual.

strictly · 2021-06-11T21:46:51+00:00

What sexual orientation is Julie Bindel?

Bisexual.

Why?

Her account of her "homosexuality" sounds alien to homosexual women. I can't reread her article it as it's under paywall but if she has more or less explicitly stated it wouldn't be hard at all for her to be with men (I assume it was in this article but can't say for sure as I don't have access to it right now), so she is obviously attracted to men. For a homosexual woman it would be hard, like torture, due to the sexual turn off. My guess is that she isn't exclusively attracted to men though, aka not straight, that would mean she is attracted to both sexes. A person who is attracted to both men and women is bisexual.

strictly · 2021-06-02T23:05:45+00:00

she chose to make her statements public

Then you should have no problems with people having opinions about people who made public statements which this female trans person did.

You don't have to be a "genderist" to misgender someone.

You can't lie about someone having a false gender identity unless you first refer to a gender identity which requires the speaker to use gender identity based definitions for the words involved in supposed misgendering. You have to prove that the source consider "she" a pronoun to be used for those with a specific gender identity. It's very unlikely that they would be referring to any type of gender identity with pronouns as they are not genderists thus they can't misgender anyone with pronouns, only missex if they referred to sex.

It's polite and the right thing to do.

Lying goes against my moral principals and I don't care if people who ask me to lie about them consider me impolite for refusing to lie, it wasn't polite of them to expect me to lie in the first place. I am not going to adopt gender-identity based definitions either as that would lead to misgendering people en masse with false gender identities just to benefit a few, it goes against moral conscience. Innocent people shouldn't have suffer being labeled with false gender identities just because some people don't like being their sex.

strictly · 2021-06-02T13:57:58+00:00

that site is using an example of a specific person who most likely does not want his case to be used as an example by transphobes

J.K. Rowling is an example of specific person who most likely does not want her case to be used as an example by those who call her TERF but trans activists use her as an example of "bigot" anyway. People will be used as examples by the opposing side, that's just how it is.

Besides the blatant misgendering

To misgender the speaker needs to claim a person has a gender identity the person doesn't have, which requires the speaker to use gender identity based definitions for the words involved in the supposed misgendering. This makes it very unlikely that any misgendering happened as would require the speaker to be a genderist, aka not gender critical.

To be an ally to a group, you have to listen to actual members of that group, not impose your own ideas.

You call us bad allies but I don't get why you consider us allies to the current trans activism in the first place. We are on the opposing side so you shouldn't really expect us to act like allies. It would be like me complaining about trans activists being bad allies to GC for not actually listening to us instead of imposing their own ideas, it wouldn't make sense for me to expect trans activists to act like allies. I believe female people, even those who identify as men, should have the same female rights as all other females, but that doesn't make me an ally to current trans activism. It's like how I believe all female people, even the conservative ones against abortion, should have the same right to get abortions should they choose to, and that doesn't make me an anti-abortion ally either.

At the very least they could have been respectful by using he and Mr.

There is no moral duty to lie about trans people just because they like being lied about.

strictly · 2021-06-02T11:08:20+00:00

Misgendering is using terms and pronouns that person said they do not prefer.

Misgendering, as the name indicates, is lying about someone having a gender identity they don't have. Calling someone a pronoun they don't prefer is not proof of misgendering as you need evidence the person indeed referred to a false gender identity, and a prerequirement for that is that speaker uses a gender identity based system for their pronoun usage as otherwise they wouldn’t be able to refer to a false gender identity in the first place. The most likely perpetrator of misgendering is thus a trans activist, as they have the required belief system to perform misgendering (and trans activists happen to be quite keen on misgendering non-trans people with false gender identities).

If you refer to something else than lying about gender identities with misgendering then you are using the wrong word for it and should use a more accurate word representing the phenomena you have in mind.

Was it so hard for them to type he, him, his, and Mr.?

I don't use a gender identity based system for pronouns so it would be lying of me to call a known female "he". Lying isn't hard but it's against my morals. I don't use a gender identity based system as that almost inevitably leads to misgendering people en masse and I happen to have strong negative feelings against misgendering (a lie about the mind) as that would be much more personal than any accidental mis-sexing, no one should ever have to be labeled with a false gender identity.

strictly · 2021-06-02T00:11:53+00:00

I don't trust sources that purposefully misgender trans people.

Misgendering requires using gender definitions as one cannot misgender someone without first referring to gender identity. Do you have quote proving that this source states that they consider male and female gender identities? Because if they refer to sex they can by definition not misgender, only mis-sex, and calling female people female is correctly-sexing, not mis-sexing. But even if this source had mis-sexed this female person as "male" then I don't think this person would have minded it as many trans people have being mis-sexed as a goal for them.

strictly · 2021-06-01T23:51:51+00:00

So it's basically how you perceive yourself?

I am aware I am female the same way female people who identify as men are aware they are female. All female transitioners who identify as men perceive themselves as female as taking testosterone to imitate appearance of the male sex requires having a female perception, had they been unaware of their own femaleness they wouldn’t been able to be dysphoric about their female sex and thus wouldn’t be trans to begin with.

I see myself as female, and would see myself as female regardless of my birth sex.

Then you don’t mean you see yourself as female when you say you see yourself as female as you you don’t refer to female but a gender identity. If female and male are gender identities then according your definition above a gender identity is the personal conception of oneself of having a gender identity, another gender identity, both or neither. That’s a circular definition.

If I was born male, I would transition via hormones and surgery, because being male would cause me dysphoria.

When I have asked people it seems be like fifty fifty, half not caring if they had been born the opposite sex and half who would rather not (but those who said they would rather not said they still wouldn't transition but as transition can't make someone the opposite sex, so they would rather just come to term with it). So if gender identity is body preferences then it would make it morally wrong to call someone a gender identity unless you have proof the person indeed has the body preference your refer to, as otherwise you risk lying about something very personal about them. So if female to you is the preference to have a female body it would be immoral of you to call someone female before asking and making sure this person indeed prefers a female body, and if this person is indifferent it would be immoral to call that person female, as indifference and preference are different things that ought to be distinguished.

strictly · 2021-05-02T00:36:34+00:00

Children can't consent but I believe in body autonomy for adults, their body, their choice. Demanding others to lie is not within their right though as the minds of others is not the trans person's body. I think societal no tolerance for lies would make transitioning seem less fun for many, if they can't demand others to call them the opposite sex and are rightfully reproached by society as a whole for demanding that then many probably wouldn't bother taking cross-sex hormones even without a ban.

strictly · 2021-04-30T13:27:53+00:00

I actually compiled a list of all trans-exclusionary lesbian subreddits

You named three subreddit with "cis" in the name so these subreddits are only for the few lesbians who have gender identities. It's clear that reddit is against lesbians being free. So if you see this subreddits as "proof" that reddit allows female homosexuality, reddit only allows female homosexuality for lesbians who agree to adopt this "cisgender" gender identity as trans activists deems it transphobic of non-trans people not adopt sex as a gender identity. Banning lesbians for not having gender identities is wrong, just as it wrong to ban lesbians for being lesbians, the mind should be free too.

And personally I don't really care if a lesbian sub is trans-exclusionary, I care about it being male-exclusionary. I'm fine with lesbians who identify as "non-binary" etc using lesbian spaces (some of them probably identify like that as that is the only way to not have gender identity and not be labeled a bigot by trans activists, or because they have bought into the false trans narrative that all non-trans people would have gender identities). If someone is a homosexual female (aka a female who is exclusively attracted to those of the same reproductive sex) she is a lesbian, gender identity has nothing to do with that.

strictly · 2021-04-26T11:21:46+00:00

Do you see representatives in public life who "match" you?

If you refer to clothes wearing the same type of clothes as me is relatively common in both sexes as wearing hoodies, jeans, sneakers is seen as relatively unisex. I don't wear bright colors, jewelry, make-up, skirts, dresses, or clothes that show too much skin, people say I would look "cute" if I did but I don't care. Dressing like me doesn't draw attention though.

strictly · 2021-04-09T17:12:40+00:00

I also refute the idea that paraphilias are rare to nonexistent in women.

? EDIT: Read it wrong, I see now.

Either way, even the button thing is bit of a stretch. I don't know if you have the natural instinct against incest or not, but if you do, monosexuality is like that regarding the wrong sex. If you would feel icky about involving a family member in the paraphilia, then a monosexual person would feel the same way about involving someone of the wrong sex.

strictly · 2021-04-09T16:53:03+00:00

Gyneandromorphophilia only appears to exist in men.

I’ve talked to too many paraphilic women to buy Blanchard’s theory that paraphilic women would be super rare. I've also talked women who seem very GAMP.

heterosexuality only refers to one portion of their overall sexual makeup

If removing all sexual attractions to female people wouldn’t make a man asexual then said man isn’t hetersexual.

Heterosexual is not the complete package.

Hetersexual isn’t the complete package regarding sexuality in general as there are also other properties than the sex property that would further reduce the pool of people the person would consider potential sexual partner. Hetersexual is the complete package regarding regarding sex orientation though as the job of a sexual orientation is to give a complete list of the sexes the person might be interested in having sex with.

which I share with many sex researchers

Sex reaseachers are interested in the etiology of things, and the etiology and the orientation are not the same thing. But even in etiology there would be a difference between the two groups as something would have caused these men to develop in different ways, making one group GAMP and the other heterosexual.

If we were instead talking about something such as erotic asphyxiation, it would be easier, and we would probably readily agree that waterboarding a person for sexual gratification isn't anything like the way that the overwhelming majority get theirs, and needs a different classification.

I still consider the sex of the person they want to be waterboarded by of importance in sexual orientation taxanomy. A person who only wants normophilic sex with females and also only want to be waterboarded by female people still show a female sex specificity. And if the person doesn’t care who they get waterboarded by for sexual gratification then that person lacks the monosexual property of always caring about the sex of the person doing sexual stuff to them. The sex of the actor can only be ignored if the person doing the waterboarding isn’t involved at all in the process and therefore can’t turn the monsexual person off with their presence, maybe is in another room, and only there to push the button as the person doesn’t have a device to push the button themselves.

A person who is sexually turned off by people of the wrong sex only in the context of sexual encounters that are normophilic isn’t someone I consider monsoexual at all. They show a sex flexibility that monosexual people lack.

strictly · 2021-04-09T00:24:46+00:00

People who desire only their same, age appropriate sex strictly on the basis of that sex and for the normal sex acts.

That is not the definition you have used in similar context as you think a man with GAMP can he heterosexual (which you have said elsewhere in this thread) which implies you think a woman with GAMP can be a lesbian unless you use a more sex specific definition for homosexuality than heterosexuality. Or maybe you have changed your stance since then, in that case I didn't know you had changed your stance on it.

EDIT: Or you mean this definition isn't meant to be exclusionary allowing this person to have a paraphilic opposite-sex attractions simultaneously and still be count as homosexual in this definition, then it leads to the problems I specified above.

strictly · 2021-04-08T23:57:14+00:00

If you think we have a moral obligation to not include paraphilic people in the LGB then you should define homosexuality and bisexuality as exclusive to normophilic people, i.e, having a paraphilia should get a person excluded from the sexual orientation taxonomy altogether. I would respect that position for being coherent as that indeed would exclude all paraphilic people from the LGB. But here you seem argue it’s wrong to include paraphilic people, yet you don’t want to define sexual orientation as exclusive to normophilic people so in actuality you do want to include the paraphilic people, just in other categories by only counting their normophilic attractions in the taxonomy.

hat kind of reductionalism has consequences

And so does your reductionalism as we lose half of information if we can’t count the sex of the paraphilic attractions in the taxonomy. I am not against bisexual people refactoring bisexuality as they please, you do you. But when you want to redefine homosexuality then that negatively affects me and other homosexuals.

The main beneficiaries of your redefinition of homosexuality would be non-homosexual paraphilic people who would be miscategorized as homosexual as their opposite-sex attractions no longer excludes them if it’s paraphilic which might gratify the paraphilias themselves. Lesbian-identifying bisexual women with GAMP would find being miscategorized as lesbians validating to both their GAMP paraphilias and their male sexual partners. Lesbian-identifying bisexual women who have like role-playing lesbians who getting correctively raped by men due to submissive attraction to men would also find being miscategorized as lesbians as validating to their submissive kinks, this miscategorization would also gratify their male sexual partners who are into converting lesbians. The main losers of your redefinition would be the normophilic homosexuals as homosexuality would be redefined to a type of bisexuality by removing the monosexual requirement. If I have to be in the same category as male-attracted women even in the lesbian category I don’t see why we have a lesbian category at all, it would mainly be for those who have a kink for the label itself. We could just have one big joint lesbian/bisexual category then as there would be no real difference between bisexual and lesbian in this definition.

It is true that the majority of pedophilic men desire males

Is there a consensus that boys would get molested more than girls? Stats usually say girls get molested twice the male rate. Or do you mean the gay pedophiles are just better at controlling their desires than the straight pedophiles? Anyway, it’s not that unusual for a pedophile to only be into children of one sex, so why not call that sex specificity for what it is when it’s relevant? A straight pedophile is more specific than just pedophile and you are for specificity, no?

If you want to reduce our entire rationales down to which sexes people are into with regards to their sex

If you think bisexual is too big of a category then divide it to smaller categories. I am not against you being as granular as you want as long you don’t redefine homosexuality.

strictly · 2021-04-08T19:51:49+00:00

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination.

I referred to same-sex discrimination same-sex attracted AGPs might face for being same-sex attracted, not scrutiny for being AGP as that’s irrelevant to the LGB.

I think we should be able to recognize that paraphilic people can be homosexual/bisexual without centering these paraphilic people, the same way we can recognize murderers can be homosexual/bisexual without centering these murderers. The existence of homosexual/bisexual murders doesn’t mean LGB must put effort on ending the “discrimination” murderers face for being murderers though as that’s irrelevant to the LGB, so it’s same with paraphilic homosexuals/bisexuals, if the discrimination they face isn’t tied to their same-sex attraction then that discrimination isn’t a case for the LGB. We also shouldn't inaccurately put paraphilic people in categories they don’t belong to so a heterosexual AAP female who calls herself a "gay man" shouldn’t be put in the LGB at all, as she is not same-sex attracted in the first place.

I think AGP have a propensity of making everything about themselves

My guess is that the male-attracted AGPs who are the most likely to make a group all about themselves are those who want to be validated as "women" so if we allowed them to be part of a “men loving men” group they wouldn’t be very motivated to make this group all about themselves as they would see the membership itself as invalidating to them (speculating of course).

strictly · 2021-04-08T09:35:21+00:00

Okay, I see. Asking because I was curious if you got introduced to it the same way I did. I got introduced to the theory 2016 by the resident blanchardians on the reddit sub gcdebatesqt, tailcalled (surveyannon) convinced me. I never believed in the traditional trans narrative before that though as it didn't make sense to me.

strictly · 2021-04-08T09:00:59+00:00

I was trying to shore up homosexual such that it's only specifically the activity of sex with same sex people.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you want to define homosexuality so that paraphililic attractions isn’t part of the equation, no? The consequence is that it allows allows opposite-sex attracted people to be classified as homosexuals. So paraphilic lesbians who are exclusively attracted to female people but in a paraphilic way would be excluded from the lesbian category, instead paraphilic bisexual women where the opposite-sex attraction is paraphilic are included as paraphilic opposite-sex attraction here wouldn’t exclude anyone from being categorized as homosexual. The homosexual category wouldn’t be saved from paraphilic inclusion either way then, the only difference is whether these paraphilic people would be lesbian or bisexual. Personally I see including non-lesbians as lesbians are a bigger problem than including paraphilic people per se. In my experience paraphilic lesbians seem more likely to understand that their paraphilia makes them different from other lesbians and are less likely to expect normophilic lesbians to be like them while lesbian-identifying bisexuals (who may or may not be paraphilic) often do expect lesbians to share their bisexuality, aka think lesbians who aren’t male-attracted like them must be bigots.

Because the majority of trans women are motivated by autogynephilia

And if they are male-attracted they would be bisexual or homosexual and if they are AGP and heterosexual then they aren’t LGB. I think male-attracted male AGPs can face same-sex discrimination due their same-sex attraction, someone who is against same-sex activities probably doesn’t care if the male-attracted males are AGP or not. But I understand you right you think it’s problematic to include male-attracted male AGPs in male bisexual groups, do you fear that they would make male bisexuality all about their AGP then?